Re: [RFC] A simple draft for channels

[ng0@n0.is]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1399 bytes --]

myglc2 writes:
> On 01/19/2018 at 14:41 Ludovic Courtès writes:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wurmus@mdc-berlin.de> skribis:
>>
>>> As a first implementation of channels I’d just like to have a channel
>>> description file that records at least the following things:
[…]
>> One thing that’s still an open question is how we should treat Guix
>> itself in that channelized world.
>>
>> Should Guix be a “normal” channel?  It’s tempting to think of it as a
>> regular channel; however, it’s definitely “special” in that it can
>> update the ‘guix’ command, maybe guix-daemon & co., locale data, etc.
>> How does that affect ‘guix channel’?
>
> ISTM this design allows channels to inject non-free &/or non-safe
> components into other user's Guix systems. Is that true?
>
> If so, how will it impact the Guix promise of software freedom/safety?
>
> WDYT? - George

Just commenting on this one for now until I got my mail fixed:

Why is this a problem? Already today you can run Guix with as
many modifications as you like to, and you are free to install
whatever you want.
That's one of the very good aspects of Guix - you can use it to
create whatever you like.
Or maybe you need to expand a bit on the sentences you wrote
George.

-- 
ng0 :: https://ea.n0.is
A88C8ADD129828D7EAC02E52E22F9BBFEE348588 :: https://ea.n0.is/keys/

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]