From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christopher Allan Webber Subject: Re: guix is the guildhall that we always wanted! Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 08:54:12 -0500 Message-ID: <87lgs480vv.fsf@dustycloud.org> References: <87zigl3wph.fsf@pobox.com> <87a88kanjq.fsf@netris.org> <87efxwnw3x.fsf@igalia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34372) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cosKq-0003dp-MY for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 09:54:29 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cosKp-00062j-Pt for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 09:54:28 -0400 In-reply-to: <87efxwnw3x.fsf@igalia.com> 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: > On Thu 16 Mar 2017 23:01, Mark H Weaver writes: > >> If [Guix] starts 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. > > I get what you are saying. I think that if a future guildhall is > decentralized but uses Guix it needs to minimize its burden on Guix. > That could mean that the packages are actually specified in a different > DSL with different stability characteristics -- for example that DSL > could call specification->package under the hood for example, like > Ludovic mentions. (I should mention that this idea of using Guix and > especially all its errors are my own -- haven't talked to others about > it yet!) > > Which module a package definition is in is a good example of something > not to depend on. This makes sense to me... if it really is true that our scheme'y Guildhall-style packages are so simple they're more data than code, maybe we could even restrict them to... just data. Just a list of what files are being provided, etc. That could easily be stored in some minimal database. I guess I'm saying +1.