From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Lightning talk at IPFS camp
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 16:53:01 +0200
Message-ID: <87pnmzyt9u.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <87ef4g2zfq.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87sgryhg7y.fsf@ambrevar.xyz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:54123)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2)
 (envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1hgVls-0006n7-Qv
 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 10:53:09 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87sgryhg7y.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> (Pierre Neidhardt's message of
 "Mon, 24 Jun 2019 22:37:53 +0200")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
 <guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
 <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
 <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz>
Cc: Guix-devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>

Hello!

Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz> skribis:

> Update: I've been asked if I wanted to conduct a "Deep dive"
> (https://github.com/ipfs/camp/blob/master/DEEP_DIVES/README.md) about
> IPFS and Guix.  In other words: what problem we've encountered, how to
> solve them, what we'd like to do.

Neat.

> I think it would be a good time to discuss a work out bug
> 33899	"[PATCH 0/5] Distributing substitutes over IPFS" that Ludovic
> submitted a while ago.
>
> What do you people think?

Sounds like a good idea!

> Ludovic, what are the most pressing issues with this patch that you'd
> like to raise?

I think the patches provide a reasonable way forward.  One issue that
was discussed with Hector at <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/33899>
is the fact that my patch would use its own implementation of a
directory index instead of using IPFS=E2=80=99s =E2=80=9CUnixFS=E2=80=9D ab=
straction.  It seems
that =E2=80=9CUnixFSv2=E2=80=9D would fit the bill, but it was not implemen=
ted at the
time.

There might be other issues, but I=E2=80=99ve paged that out in the meantim=
e.  :-)
Hopefully if you take a look at that thread and the relevant patches,
you can find potential issues and things that need to be discussed.

Really happy you=E2=80=99ll be discussing these things!

Ludo=E2=80=99.