GNU bug report logs - #69487
Regression regarding guix shell and its "pure" flag?

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 69487 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 69487 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: André A. Gomes <andremegafone <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-guix <at> gnu.org
Subject: Regression regarding guix shell and its "pure" flag?
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2024 17:11:32 +0200

Hi Guix,

Take a package that you have installed in the default profile, say
"which".  Then notice that when issuing "guix shell --pure" followed by
"which which" replies that the command can't be found.  On the other
hand, when starting the environment via "guix shell", the command can be
found.

If my memory isn't tricking me, the "pure" flag used to behave
differently.  It simply started the shell with a clean env, but it still
exposed the packages from the default profile.  Am I missing something
or is this a regression?

Thanks.


-- 
André A. Gomes
"You cannot even find the ruins..."

Message #8 received at 69487 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Josselin Poiret <dev <at> jpoiret.xyz>
To: André A. Gomes <andremegafone <at> gmail.com>,
 69487 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#69487: Regression regarding guix shell and its "pure" flag?
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2024 17:46:23 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi André

André A. Gomes <andremegafone <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Hi Guix,
>
> Take a package that you have installed in the default profile, say
> "which".  Then notice that when issuing "guix shell --pure" followed by
> "which which" replies that the command can't be found.  On the other
> hand, when starting the environment via "guix shell", the command can be
> found.
>
> If my memory isn't tricking me, the "pure" flag used to behave
> differently.  It simply started the shell with a clean env, but it still
> exposed the packages from the default profile.  Am I missing something
> or is this a regression?

No, this is `--pure` working as expected, the other behavior you
describe would be considered a bug.  Maybe you used to have the default
profile loaded through .bashrc, even though this is discouraged exactly
for that reason?

Best,
-- 
Josselin Poiret

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.