[bug#50960] [PATCH 00/10] Add 'guix shell' to subsume 'guix environment'

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> skribis:

> Am Samstag, den 02.10.2021, 12:22 +0200 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
>> [...]
>> +(define (auto-detect-manifest opts)
>> +  "If OPTS do not specify packages or a manifest, load a
>> \"guix.scm\" or
>> +\"manifest.scm\" file from the current directory or one of its
>> ancestors.
>> +Return the modified OPTS."
>> +  (define (options-contain-payload? opts)
>> +    (match opts
>> +      (() #f)
>> +      ((('package . _) . _) #t)
>> +      ((('load . _) . _) #t)
>> +      ((('manifest . _) . _) #t)
>> +      ((('expression . _) . _) #t)
>> +      ((_ . rest) (options-contain-payload? rest))))
>> +
>> +  (if (options-contain-payload? opts)
>> +      opts
>> +      (match (find-file-in-parent-directories '("guix.scm"
>> "manifest.scm"))
>> +        (#f
>> +         (warning (G_ "no packages specified; creating an empty
>> environment~%"))
>> +         opts)
>> +        (file
>> +         (info (G_ "loading environment from '~a'...~%") file)
>> +         (match (basename file)
>> +           ("guix.scm"
>> +            (alist-cons 'load `(package ,file) opts))
>> +           ("manifest.scm"
>> +            (alist-cons 'manifest file opts)))))))
>> [...]
> What would happen on the top-level of the Guix source tree or deep
> inside the tree of a guile package that deals with manifests, that
> aren't necessarily related to Guix?

You mean a directory that contains a file named ‘guix.scm’ or
‘manifest.scm’ but that happens to do something completely unrelated?

We can never rule this out, but I’d say it’s unlikely (these two
conventions are rather well established) and it’s up to the user to pay
attention.

WDYT?

Thanks,
Ludo’.