zimoun, In response to your previous email, I gave a long-form reply to the general discussion. However, I just want to note that the personal issue I am encountering isn't with user profiles; instead it is with those generated by `guix environment'.
In particular, I was trying to use `guix pack' to share the *development* environment of a package with a non-guix user. As I shared in my original email, the (imperfect) solution I used was by wrapping `<profile>/manifest' with `read-manifest' and feeding that to `guix pack --manifest': (call-with-input-file "<profile>/manifest" (@@ (guix packages) read-manifest) zimoun <zimon.touto...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 17:24, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote: > > > I think there were several issues we discussed: > > > > 1. We can only approximate that actual profile content; storing > > an approximate ‘manifest.scm’ along with the profile would IMO be > > deceptive. > > > > 2. It’s easy to maintain compatibility over a data format, but it’s > > much harder to maintain compatibility for code. > > > > I think we discussed these issues the best we could in the megathread, > > so I’m personally in favor of moving forward in a pragmatic way. > > By pragmatic way, you mean: > > - let the format of <profile>/manifest as it is, > - write '--export-manifest' as an approximation > > right? > > Well, I personally changed my workflow and now I always use manifest > files. And the situation that I described in the manifest about the > "Working Scientific" doing install, pull, install, pull, remove, > install, etc. is rooted in bad practises, so it should be avoided. > > Therefore, I agree that '--export-manifest' is the right approach, as an > helping tool; too bad for some corner cases. :-) > > > All the best, > simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature