Re: build all dependents?

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice]

> This sometimes requires some manual fiddling

Thanks for highlighting that.  I've never encountered it.

This is similar to another recent bug report, where ‘guix show’ 
listed something as depending on a hidden package.  Or something 
like that.

How is this not a bug?

A package manager CLI that so routinely lists bogus ‘packages’ 
that break the very same CLI is silly.

We're so used to it happening in Guix that we don't notice, or 
tolerate it when we do, or pile on ad hoc work-arounds because we 
broke the obvious sed to begin with.

Two possible solutions:

- Hide hidden packages.  This makes the most sense to me.  You'd 
 still report accurate[0] numbers for ‘guix refresh -l’.

- Allow referring to hidden packages in some contexts, or maybe 
 all contexts, and keep listing them in ‘advanced’ tools like 
 ‘guix refresh -l’.

There are probably more.

Kind regards,

T G-R

[0]: Of course these numbers aren't accurate anyway, because 
inheritance.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature