From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ricardo Wurmus Subject: Re: [RFC] A simple draft for channels Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 21:37:04 +0100 Message-ID: <87d120z4zz.fsf@mdc-berlin.de> References: <87bmhq6ytg.fsf@mdc-berlin.de> <87d1263qzt.fsf@gnu.org> 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]:58234) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ee5Jy-00067L-DR for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 15:37:31 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ee5Jt-0001j3-EP for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 15:37:30 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87d1263qzt.fsf@gnu.org> 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: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > One thing that=E2=80=99s still an open question is how we should treat = Guix > itself in that channelized world. > > Should Guix be a =E2=80=9Cnormal=E2=80=9D channel? Guix as such should not be a =E2=80=9Cnormal=E2=80=9D channel; =E2=80=9C(= gnu packages *)=E2=80=9D, however, could be considered a channel. I don=E2=80=99t see any use of disabling it, though. But maybe there=E2=80=99s potential here to split up that namespace into = core packages and non-core packages. Then we could allow users to disable all but the core packages (such as the bootstrap) and possibly drop in replacements from their own channels. This would give users a little more control over the set of available packages, but this all sounds a little too speculative to me at this point. My initial goal is much simpler. -- Ricardo