From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: bug#22629: Channels!
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 22:50:29 +0200
Message-ID: <87efeg99t6.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <87vb5vsffd.fsf@gnu.org> <87pny2iks2.fsf@gnu.org>
	<877ekagtg9.fsf@netris.org>
	<de4846c1-42c5-dd76-b87e-8a2ea2d4c4c5@fastmail.net>
	<87efeh9rm8.fsf@gnu.org>
	<m15zzt42d5.fsf@ordinateur-de-catherine--konrad.home>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58487)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1fv7Qd-0004GE-74
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 16:51:03 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1fv7Qc-0006rJ-Ea
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 16:51:03 -0400
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:60702)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1fv7Qc-0006rE-Ac
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 16:51:02 -0400
Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1fv7Qc-0004n5-5V
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 16:51:02 -0400
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.22629.B22629.153557583818384@debbugs.gnu.org>
In-Reply-To: <m15zzt42d5.fsf@ordinateur-de-catherine--konrad.home> (Konrad
	Hinsen's message of "Wed, 29 Aug 2018 17:30:14 +0200")
List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guix/>
List-Post: <mailto:bug-guix@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "bug-Guix" <bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Konrad Hinsen <konrad.hinsen@fastmail.net>
Cc: 22629@debbugs.gnu.org

Hello Konrad,

Konrad Hinsen <konrad.hinsen@fastmail.net> skribis:

>> Mark=E2=80=99s concern is not about whether packages are the latest vers=
ion,
>> etc.  It=E2=80=99s about the constraints that could result from widespre=
ad
>> development of channels outside Guix proper: technically all of Guix is
>
> That's how I understood it as well. If/when Guix becomes somebody else's
> dependency, then there will be pressure on stability in Guix itself.
>
> My point is that this will happen anyway if Guix is adopted more widely.
> Every manifest file, personal or shared as part of a software package
> ("guix.scm"), relies on the same technical details as a
> channel. Introducing channels only makes the issue more visible.

True.  Manifests can rely on fewer details of the API than a channel
though, particularly if they use =E2=80=98specifications->manifests=E2=80=
=99.

(BTW code in channels could use =E2=80=98specification->package=E2=80=99 as=
 well to
increase decoupling a bit.)

> And this is really the same issue as with the stability of the packages
> themselves, Guix being a kind of superpackage. Most people want agility
> for the software layer they are most concerned with, and stability for
> all layers below it. For Mark (and certainly others here), Guix happens
> to be the layer they are most concerned with.

Yeah.

Thanks,
Ludo=E2=80=99.