Hi Chris, Chris Marusich <cmmarus...@gmail.com> skribis:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> Chris Marusich <cmmarus...@gmail.com> skribis: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> The manual says ((guix) Invoking guix package): >>> >>> This option can also be used to compute the _combined_ search paths >>> of several profiles. Consider this example: >>> >>> $ guix package -p foo -i guile >>> $ guix package -p bar -i guile-json >>> $ guix package -p foo -p bar --search-paths >>> >>> The last command above reports about the ‘GUILE_LOAD_PATH’ >>> variable, even though, taken individually, neither ‘foo’ nor ‘bar’ >>> would lead to that recommendation. >> >> [...] >> >>> Is the documentation wrong, or is this a regression? >> >> Try with “guile2.2-json” instead of “guile-json”. >> >> Ludo’. > > As usual, you're right! :-) That worked: [...] > Why does 'guix' resolve to guile@2.2.2, but 'guile-json' resolves to > guile-json@0.6.0? It’s because we’re not done with the transition: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2017-03/msg00436.html The idea is to incrementally rename all “guile2.2-foo” packages to “guile-foo”, and, when needed, keep an extra “guile2.0-foo”. For guile-json this hasn’t been done yet, but now’s probably a good time to do it. > Is it because, as mentioned in the comments in procedure > 'find-newest-available-packages' in gnu/packages.scm, "the preferred > package is whichever one was found last by 'fold-packages'"? > > I've attached a patch for the documentation which might help clarify > this for anyone who has the same question in the future. What do you > think? Too much detail for an edge case, or a useful footnote? I would rather not add more text to it because the example will become valid again soonish, and the extra text might muddy waters. WDYT? Thanks, Ludo’.