Re: Implementing the guix-dameon in Guile

[Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1443 bytes --]


Josselin Poiret <dev@jpoiret.xyz> writes:

>> 2: https://nlnet.nl/project/GuixDaemon-Guile/
>>
>> Rewrites are risky because you only get the value right at the end,
>> therefore the priority is to get a minimal but viable implementation in
>> Guile that can be switched to, and not to get distracted on adding or
>> improving functionality unnecessarily. That is better done once the new
>> implementation has been adopted.
>>
>> While I think there's a substantial amount of work to do, progress
>> towards a Guile guix-daemon has already been made. There was a least one
>> GSoC project which did make progress, and there's Guile implementations
>> of some of the functionality in Guix already.
>>
>> Still though, I'd like to hear what people think about which direction
>> the implementation should go, and what features they'd like to see. Even
>> if those are not essential to make the Guile implementation viable, it
>> still might inform the direction to take.
>
> I think the #1 feature for me would be to have it completely
> unpriviledged using mount namespaces, so that you could still build
> software without needing to run the daemon on the system.  You won't be
> able to run the built software without using namespaces as well though,
> but that still a step in the right direction imo.
>
> WDYT?

Thanks for the suggestion :)

I'm not quite sure what this would involve, but it sounds like it might
not be that hard to do.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 987 bytes --]