Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> writes:
> elaexuo...@wilsonb.com skribis: >> First, am I missing something? Is there a better/preferred way to make use of >> the `manifest' files in profiles? > You’re not missing anything: it’s a longstanding source of confusion > that these ‘manifest’ files are not like the ‘manifest.scm’ files. > These ‘manifest’ files are meant for internal consumption. This hurt my head for a while a few years ago until I realized that 'manifest.scm' is the guix "order" and ‘.guix-profile/manifest’ is the guix "packing list". But actually a guix' 'manifest' packing list goes well beyond what we normally find in a packing list by containing detailed info about how the specific products were made, down to the specific design for the specific version shipped. Thought of this way it is easy to understand why a receiver of a 'manifest' can only estimate the set of 'manifest.scm' that might produce it. A simple-minded example: did the manifest.scm specify the version of the package shipped or is this an artifact of a) when 'manifest.scm' was processed or b) of the requirements of the other packages that were received? In any event, once I saw it this way it no longer troubled me that guix doesn't have a pushbutton way to "reverse" 'manifest' into 'manifest.scm'. ISTM we set ourselves up for confused users and a lot of explaining by labeling two very different things with same name :-0 Yes, only 'manifest.scm' is in the doc, but '.guix-profile/manifest' smacks a user in the face pretty quickly which leads to these messy questions. IMO we could dramatically simplify the situation, and simplify our lives, by simply renaming the .guix-profile/manifest file ;-) George