From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konrad Hinsen Subject: bug#22629: Channels not needed for a stable branch Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 12:10:56 +0200 Message-ID: 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 Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43300) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fvK8E-0002jT-9D for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 06:24:58 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fvJvw-0007yL-1n for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 06:12:20 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:32915) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fvJvm-0007p8-EI for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 06:12:05 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fvJvl-0005Nf-Uh for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 06:12:01 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <875zzs9wzl.fsf@netris.org> 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: Mark H Weaver Cc: 22629@debbugs.gnu.org Hi Mark, > I'm not sure what you're trying to argue above. To me, it looks like an > argument in favor of my position, namely that a stable version of Guix > should include _all_ of Guix, not just the packages. All, probably not, some, probably yes. What I am arguing is that the productive coexistence of a stable version with the bleeding-edge version requires agreement on a stable foundation. Where exactly the borderline lies between this foundation and what is built on top of it is not a question I am sufficiently qualified to answer. 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. Konrad.