Re: [PATCH] Add draft post "CRAN, a practical example for being reproducible at large scale using GNU Guix".

[Lars-Dominik Braun <lars@6xq.net>]

Hi Ludo,

> As mentioned on #guix-hpc, I think it’d be interesting to add a
> reference to https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-022-01143-6 to
> illustrate the rationale.  I think it’s important because R users are
> likely to wonder why they’d bother with Guix in the first place.
from the article and the quotes in your patch I feel it’s not clear
the execution failures are the result of mismatched dependencies. Sure,
if I put on my Guix glasses I would assume they are at least partially
responsible, but in “Limitations of the Study” they mention they did
not investigate causes for the failures. So arguing that code quality
in these open repositories is just terrible – as we can see from the
automated cleaning step doing wonders – would be equally valid. Or am
I missing something?

You’re right that if the blog post would be published in a non-Guix
context it would need a good reason to use Guix, but in this case I was
just describing a cool new toy for people already using Guix. Is that
mind-set acceptable for posts on hpc.guix.info or do we need a motivating
section?

Sorry for the late and quite negative reply :(
Lars

PS: I believe packrat has been superseeded by renv.