From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pjotr Prins Subject: Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 07:16:15 +0200 Message-ID: <20160724051615.GA20805@thebird.nl> References: <579027b7.VHXjhpPxQC3AAmeY%pjotr.public12@email> <8760rznoh1.fsf@gnu.org> <20160722004130.GA10340@thebird.nl> <874m7hk6dz.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <20160724033027.GA20236@thebird.nl> <2eb889dd-8abc-70a2-cabb-a81ac5b1b60b@tobias.gr> 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]:43469) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bRBpQ-0003gA-4k for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Jul 2016 01:19:53 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bRBpL-0007Sx-RY for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Jul 2016 01:19:51 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2eb889dd-8abc-70a2-cabb-a81ac5b1b60b@tobias.gr> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 07:10:44AM +0200, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote: > > The main problems with the current GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH approach are > > [...]you need a Guix source tree[...] >=20 > Oh. Really? That seems like something that shouldn't be. You are right. I am using this to fixate the Guix tree against packages. Guix itself is a moving target. > I have no experience with those languages. What do you see a =E2=80=98r= egistry=E2=80=99 > for Guix being, exactly? Just a scheme or JSON file containg package info. > A long time ago =E2=80=94 at least it seems like it[1] =E2=80=94 I did = run Exherbo, a > source-based distribution based in part on Gentoo. Unlike Gentoo, it ha= d > no concept of a centralised package repository. I already like that ;) > Package repositories were simply git/svn/... trees hosted wherever. The > only difference between the core repository and the others was that it > was configured/trusted by default. You could remove it just like any > other, if you liked fixing your system. Exactly. > I was able to run the equivalent of, in Guix pseudocode: >=20 > ~# guix package --install footools > guix package: error: footools: unknown package > [maybe it even suggested a list of repositories with packages > named =E2=80=98footools=E2=80=99, I don't remember] >=20 > ~# guix repository --add my-cool-repository > [what is currently gnu/packages would be just another repository] >=20 > ~# guix pull > [fetches all repositories from their own URI, no central point] >=20 > ~# guix package --install footools > [footools is now installed] >=20 > ~# guix package --install bar > guix package: error: =E2=80=98bar=E2=80=99 requires =E2=80=98(input "= blah")=E2=80=99 which isn't in > any of your trusted repositories, try adding one of the following: ..= . >=20 > It was an almost perfect system, IMO. Anyway, I'm definitely rambling. No no, you are getting my idea. > > Personally I think this will be very exciting. We can have a > > metaregistry that lists all these packages so everyone can track them= . >=20 > Definitely count me as excited, too. :-) >=20 > Though if it's a fork, I'll cry. No fork. A fork does not scale. Pj.