From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: bug#22629: =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=9CStable=E2=80=9D?= branch Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 14:18:16 +0200 Message-ID: <874lfcxd2v.fsf_-_@gnu.org> References: <87vb5vsffd.fsf@gnu.org> <87pny2iks2.fsf@gnu.org> <877ekagtg9.fsf@netris.org> <87zhx5msfl.fsf@pompo.co> <87lg8pccys.fsf_-_@netris.org> <87zhx59gh3.fsf@elephly.net> <875zzs9wzl.fsf@netris.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39713) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fvLxf-0001nL-6W for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 08:22:14 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fvLug-0003xa-S1 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 08:19:06 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:32996) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fvLug-0003xU-I8 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 08:19:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fvLug-00045H-B7 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 08:19:02 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: (Konrad Hinsen's message of "Thu, 30 Aug 2018 12:10:56 +0200") List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Konrad Hinsen Cc: 22629@debbugs.gnu.org Hi Konrad, Konrad Hinsen skribis: > The minimal stable foundation would have to include the file system > layout of profiles, to make sure that users can mix packages from both > versions safely. It would also be highly desirable to share the store, > whose layout would then have to be part of the foundation as well. > > Moreover, I suspect it would be preferable or even necessary to have > only one daemon running - if that's true, then the daemon's > communication protocol would have be part of the foundation as well. > > Without a common foundation, a stable version would have to be a > completely autonomous fork, which should then probably adopt a different > name as well. I don't think this is desirable, in particular for GuixSD > which would lose most of its interest if it required multiple package > managers. These are all things that very rarely, if ever, changed over the last 5 years. I expect the change rate to remain the same. :-) You seem to be arguing of a =E2=80=9Cstable=E2=80=9D branch in the sense th= at the Guix tools (the CLI in particular) wouldn=E2=80=99t change much, is that correct? I=E2=80=99m asking because there are several ways to define =E2=80=9Cstable= .=E2=80=9D Initially I thought what you had in mind was like the =E2=80=9Cstable=E2=80=9D branch= in Debian, meaning that packages only get security updates. To me that=E2=80=99s a different thing. Ludo=E2=80=99.