Roel Janssen writes: > Ludovic Courtès writes: > >> Roel Janssen <r...@gnu.org> skribis: >> >>> Ludovic Courtès writes: >>> >>>> Hi! >>>> >>>> Alex Kost <alez...@gmail.com> skribis: >>>> >>>>> Roel Janssen (2016-07-23 18:11 +0300) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear Guix, >>>>>> >>>>>> For some time now, running `guix package --dry-run --upgrade' results in >>>>>> build actions involving grafting. For a dry-run, I find that really >>>>>> odd. I believe the correct behavior should be what can be achieved >>>>>> with: `guix package --dry-run --no-grafts --upgrade'. >>>>> >>>>> I'm totally agree with this; nowadays I always use --dry-run with >>>>> --no-grafts option. >>>> >>>> Same here… >>>> >>>>> As a user I expect that --dry-run means no building at all. >>>>> >>>>> BTW it's not just about ‘guix package --dry-run --upgrade’, it relates >>>>> to all commands, for example ‘guix build --dry-run foo’, etc. >>>>> >>>>> OTOH, if a future ‘--dry-run’ would mean what ‘--dry-run --no-grafts’ >>>>> means now, than how to achieve what ‘--dry-run’ means now? Or rather: >>>>> does anyone use just --dry-run (without --no-grafts)? Is it really >>>>> useful? >>>> >>>> In theory it could be useful for ‘guix build’, since it’s a “low level” >>>> tool and people using it may want to be able to distinguish between >>>> grafted and non-grafted results. >>>> >>>> But honestly, I think changing ‘--dry-run’ to do ‘--dry-run --no-grafts’ >>>> would be fine, and probably better than the current situation. >>> >>> Could you provide some insight in where I should be looking to att the >>> check to 'graft?'? >> >> Everything that relates to command-line argument processing is in (guix >> scripts build), for the common options, and then in each (guix scripts >> *) module. >> >> Roughly, the change I suggest would be along these lines: >> >> >> However, since --dry-run is processed separately in each command, this >> change should probably be duplicated. >> >> Would you like to look into it? >> >> Something similar should be done in the Emacs interface. >> >> Thanks, >> Ludo’. > > Sorry for the delay. The attached patch applies your idea to all > subcommands that have a --dry-run option. Is this what you had in mind? > > Kind regards, > Roel Janssen
Is it OK to push this change? Kind regards, Roel Janssen