From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark H Weaver Subject: Re: guix is the guildhall that we always wanted! Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 18:01:45 -0400 Message-ID: <87a88kanjq.fsf@netris.org> References: <87zigl3wph.fsf@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51342) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1codTL-0005pz-43 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 18:02:18 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1codTF-0008Ad-QV for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 18:02:15 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87zigl3wph.fsf@pobox.com> (Andy Wingo's message of "Thu, 16 Mar 2017 19:25:46 +0100") 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: Andy Wingo Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, guile-user@gnu.org Andy Wingo writes: > So! My proposal for this new "guildhall" would be: > > 1. a web service > > 2. on which users registers projects > > 3. a project is a name + a git repository with a /package.scm file > > 4. the package.scm contains Guix package definitions for that project We need to keep all Guix package definitions within Guix itself, for the same reason that Linux (the kernel) developers insist on keeping all device drivers within a single monolithic tree. If we start encouraging a decentralized approach, that would result in strong pressure on us to freeze our API, which includes even such details as which module each package is exported from. This would drastically reduce the freedom Guix has to evolve the way its packages are specified. Mark