Hi Ludovic, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote: > Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> skribis: > >> Yes, of course, I agree that it's not possible to present a build plan >> ahead of time when grafts are enabled. That was the case before these >> changes, and it's the case today. >> >> The only part I don't understand is why you decided that "--dry-run" >> should no longer imply "--no-grafts". Does it work better for other >> people? For me, the "--dry-run" output has become utterly useless >> unless "--no-grafts" is included. > > I explained the pros and cons of having ‘--dry-run’ no longer implying > ‘--with-grafts’ here: > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2020-03/msg00337.html
I read that message, but was unable to find any mention of the 'pros' of having '--dry-run' no longer imply '--no-grafts'. Did I miss it? I still don't know what is the argument in favor of that change. > ‘guix package --dry-run’ overall works well IME, except when a > dependency of a fixed-output derivation is missing, as explained above. > > ‘guix system’ doesn’t work so well as you note (though again, that > depends on what you’re building vs. what you have in store). For what it's worth, I've found the --dry-run output to be similarly useless when rebuilding my user profile as well. That said, I acknowledge that I use Guix in a very unusual way (e.g. without substitutes, never running "guix pull", always running from a git checkout using ./pre-inst-env), so I could believe that it works better for most other Guix users. If that's the case, I can just change my private branch to make '--dry-run' imply '--no-grafts' again. Thanks, Mark