l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> taylanbayi...@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") skribis:
>
>> As an example of the pedagogic benefit of categorizing the commands:
>> many users coming from other package managers are confused as to what
>> exactly "installing" a package is in Guix
Efraim Flashner writes:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:29:25AM +0200, Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer wrote:
>> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>>
>> >> Maybe instead of --list-generations and others, these options should
>> >> transform into subcommands (list-generations) of "guix profile".
>
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:46:20AM +0200, Taylan Ulrich Bay??rl??/Kammer wrote:
As an example of the pedagogic benefit of categorizing the commands:
many users coming from other package managers are confused as to what
exactly "installing" a package is in Guix. It actually con
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:29:25AM +0200, Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer wrote:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
> >> Maybe instead of --list-generations and others, these options should
> >> transform into subcommands (list-generations) of "guix profile".
> >
> > I agree. But what should
taylanbayi...@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") skribis:
> As an example of the pedagogic benefit of categorizing the commands:
> many users coming from other package managers are confused as to what
> exactly "installing" a package is in Guix. It actually consists of two
> steps, 1. to
Alex Kost writes:
> John Darrington (2016-04-20 08:34 +0300) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:45:26PM -0400, myglc2 wrote:
>>
>> Table 2: Novice-friendly Commands
>> =
>> | existing command | new command |
>>
Alex Kost writes:
> Ludovic Courtès (2016-04-19 18:52 +0300) wrote:
>
>> Similarly, it’s not immediately obvious to me that something like “guix
>> package edit” and “guix package install” would help newcomers.
>>
>> On the contrary, they would likely violate the rule of least surprise:
>> most o
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> Maybe instead of --list-generations and others, these options should
>> transform into subcommands (list-generations) of "guix profile".
>
> I agree. But what should we do of transactions?
I'd like to re-propose the use of '--' to delineate the end of ar
John Darrington (2016-04-20 08:34 +0300) wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:45:26PM -0400, myglc2 wrote:
>
> Table 2: Novice-friendly Commands
> =
> | existing command | new command |
> |--
Ludovic Courtès (2016-04-19 18:52 +0300) wrote:
> Alex Kost skribis:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès (2016-04-18 20:20 +0300) wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> I can see how adding “package” everywhere helps categorize things
>>> mentally, but as a user interface, I think it would be rather bad.
>>
>> As a user, I thi
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:45:26PM -0400, myglc2 wrote:
Table 2: Novice-friendly Commands
=
| existing command | new command |
|+---|
| guix package
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Alex Kost skribis:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès (2016-04-18 20:20 +0300) wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> I can see how adding “package” everywhere helps categorize things
>>> mentally, but as a user interface, I think it would be rather bad.
>>
>> As a user, I think it wou
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> Alex Kost skribis:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès (2016-04-18 20:20 +0300) wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> I can see how adding “package” everywhere helps categorize things
>>> mentally, but as a user interface, I think it would be rather bad.
>>
>> As a user, I think it would be rather go
Alex Kost skribis:
> Ludovic Courtès (2016-04-18 20:20 +0300) wrote:
[...]
>> I can see how adding “package” everywhere helps categorize things
>> mentally, but as a user interface, I think it would be rather bad.
>
> As a user, I think it would be rather good. (This is just my user opinion)
John Darrington skribis:
> While we're thinking about user interfaces, I believe a more abstract approach
> would be better at this stage:What types of person are going to be
> interacting with Guix? Developers? Users? Curious Bystanders? Some other
> category of person? --- Each of t
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:23:43AM +0200, Hartmut Goebel wrote:
Am 19.04.2016 um 09:52 schrieb Alex Kost:
I like you suggestion, except for these:
> Here is the summary of the changes I think it would be good to have:
>
> [...]
> |
Ricardo Wurmus writes:
> myglc2 writes:
>
>> Alex Kost writes:
>>
>>> Ludovic Courtès (2016-04-18 20:20 +0300) wrote:
>>>
Alex Kost skribis:
> I've just sent a message to bug#22587¹, but I realized it is better to
> discuss it here in a separate thread.
>
> So, I thin
Alex Kost writes:
> Here is the summary of the changes I think it would be good to have:
>
> | Replace this: | With this:|
> |---+---|
> | guix build| guix package
"Thompson, David" writes:
> I'm with Ricardo. Separating things into things for "users" and
> things for "developers" just re-establishes the dichotomy that we
> intend to blur, and insist isn't really there in the first place. We
> want to encourage users to hack the system, not cordon off a s
myglc2 writes:
> Alex Kost writes:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès (2016-04-18 20:20 +0300) wrote:
>>
>>> Alex Kost skribis:
>>>
I've just sent a message to bug#22587¹, but I realized it is better to
discuss it here in a separate thread.
So, I think there are inconsistencies in guix c
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 09:03:30AM -0400, Thompson, David wrote:
I'm with Ricardo. Separating things into things for "users" and
things for "developers" just re-establishes the dichotomy that we
intend to blur, and insist isn't really there in the first place. We
want to encou
Alex Kost writes:
> Ludovic Courtès (2016-04-18 20:20 +0300) wrote:
>
>> Alex Kost skribis:
>>
>>> I've just sent a message to bug#22587¹, but I realized it is better to
>>> discuss it here in a separate thread.
>>>
>>> So, I think there are inconsistencies in guix commands. For example, we
>>>
I'm with Ricardo. Separating things into things for "users" and
things for "developers" just re-establishes the dichotomy that we
intend to blur, and insist isn't really there in the first place. We
want to encourage users to hack the system, not cordon off a section
of tools and say "these aren'
John Darrington writes:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 05:50:14PM -0400, myglc2 wrote:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Court??s) writes:
>
> > Alex Kost skribis:
> >
> >> I've just sent a message to bug#22587??, but I realized it is better
> to
> >> discuss it here in a separa
Alex Kost writes:
> myglc2 (2016-04-19 00:50 +0300) wrote:
>
>> For overall Guix usability, the overloading of a single guix command for
>> everything is not so good. When you eventually create a man page, it
>> will be intimidating for someone just trying to do per-user package
>> management, wh
Alex Kost writes:
> myglc2 (2016-04-19 00:50 +0300) wrote:
>
>> For overall Guix usability, the overloading of a single guix command for
>> everything is not so good. When you eventually create a man page, it
>> will be intimidating for someone just trying to do per-user package
>> management, w
myglc2 (2016-04-19 00:50 +0300) wrote:
> For overall Guix usability, the overloading of a single guix command for
> everything is not so good. When you eventually create a man page, it
> will be intimidating for someone just trying to do per-user package
> management, which the majority of, and le
Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer" (2016-04-19 12:17 +0300) wrote:
> Alex Kost writes:
>
>> Here is the summary of the changes I think it would be good to have:
>>
>> | Replace this: | With this:|
>> |---+
Hartmut Goebel (2016-04-19 12:23 +0300) wrote:
> Am 19.04.2016 um 09:52 schrieb Alex Kost:
>
> I like you suggestion, except for these:
>> Here is the summary of the changes I think it would be good to have:
>>
>> [...]
>> |---+---|
>
Am 19.04.2016 um 09:52 schrieb Alex Kost:
I like you suggestion, except for these:
> Here is the summary of the changes I think it would be good to have:
>
> [...]
> |---+---|
> | guix package --list-generations | guix profile --lis
Alex Kost writes:
> Here is the summary of the changes I think it would be good to have:
>
> | Replace this: | With this:|
> |---+---|
> | guix build| guix package b
John Darrington (2016-04-18 19:10 +0300) wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:57:59AM +0300, Alex Kost wrote:
> I've just sent a message to bug#22587??, but I realized it is better to
> discuss it here in a separate thread.
>
> So, I think there are inconsistencies in guix commands.
Ludovic Courtès (2016-04-18 20:20 +0300) wrote:
> Alex Kost skribis:
>
>> I've just sent a message to bug#22587¹, but I realized it is better to
>> discuss it here in a separate thread.
>>
>> So, I think there are inconsistencies in guix commands. For example, we
>> have "guix system build" to b
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 05:50:14PM -0400, myglc2 wrote:
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Court??s) writes:
> Alex Kost skribis:
>
>> I've just sent a message to bug#22587??, but I realized it is better to
>> discuss it here in a separate thread.
>>
>> So, I think ther
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Alex Kost skribis:
>
>> I've just sent a message to bug#22587¹, but I realized it is better to
>> discuss it here in a separate thread.
>>
>> So, I think there are inconsistencies in guix commands. For example, we
>> have "guix system build" to build a sy
Am 18.04.2016 um 10:57 schrieb Alex Kost:
> In general, I think it would be good to move package commands inside
> "guix package", e.g, to make "guix package lint", "guix package size",
> etc.
When changing this, we could also think about making "options" into real
sub-commands, eg.
"guix package
Alex Kost skribis:
> I've just sent a message to bug#22587¹, but I realized it is better to
> discuss it here in a separate thread.
>
> So, I think there are inconsistencies in guix commands. For example, we
> have "guix system build" to build a system, but "guix build" to build a
> package. IM
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:57:59AM +0300, Alex Kost wrote:
I've just sent a message to bug#22587??, but I realized it is better to
discuss it here in a separate thread.
So, I think there are inconsistencies in guix commands. For example, we
have "guix system build" to bui
I've just sent a message to bug#22587¹, but I realized it is better to
discuss it here in a separate thread.
So, I think there are inconsistencies in guix commands. For example, we
have "guix system build" to build a system, but "guix build" to build a
package. IMO "guix package build" would be
39 matches
Mail list logo
