From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: Introducing =?utf-8?B?4oCYZ3VpeCBwYWNr4oCZ?= Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 10:56:03 +0100 Message-ID: <87tw6jxaks.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87d1dodcnb.fsf@gnu.org> <87k27tv5sp.fsf@igalia.com> <87r320m0u5.fsf@gnu.org> <87efy0t0tv.fsf@igalia.com> <87a88n7pwq.fsf@gnu.org> <8737e9dwb9.fsf@lupo.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <8737e827vv.fsf@gnu.org> <878to0z7wk.fsf@lupo.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <87fui8m3vz.fsf@gnu.org> <87zigdofxq.fsf@lupo.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> 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]:48199) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1crLx3-0006Jl-Vs for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 05:56:15 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1crLx0-0005VC-SY for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 05:56:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87zigdofxq.fsf@lupo.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> (Federico Beffa's message of "Wed, 22 Mar 2017 09:48:17 +0100") 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: Federico Beffa Cc: guix-devel Hi, Federico Beffa skribis: > Suppose that Guix pack bundles become popular and compare them to, > say, Mac style archives. Let's go through Ludovic's analysis: > > 1. Composability: With Mac bundles you extract the archive in a > directory. With Guix packs it's essentially the same. >=20=20=20=20 > i. Sharing of store items: What are the chances that two > independent projects will generate packs from the same git checkout > (or guix pull)? Pretty low. Therefore the amount of sharing > between different packs will be pretty negligible. That=E2=80=99s not true; you=E2=80=99d be likely to share glibc, gcc:lib, m= aybe GLib, GTK+, etc. > ii. Adding a program. Mac style: you just extract it. With Guix > pack it's essentially the same, but it creates a manually > unmanageable network of links which entangle all packs. > > iii. Remove an item: Mac style: delete a directory. With Guix pack > the choice is: delete everything or keep everything. That is, you > keep obsolete programs/libraries with security holes on your system > ready for exploitation and unnecessarily filling your disk, or > ... start from scratch. Is this composability? > > 2. Security: Mac style bundles are problematic, but at least you can > easily delete old stuff and replace them with updated versions. > Guix packs are worse: delete everything or keep it all. > > 3. Reproducibility: As long as you carefully take note from which git > checkout you generate a Guix pack, Guix packs seems to be superior. > Oh, don't you also depend on upsteam published archives of every > single package in Guix? They sometimes disappear or are replaced > in place with different archives and so, after some time, your > carefully noted git checkout will not build anymore. > > 4. Experimentation: Guix is great for that, but packs? Are they > useful for testing on other GNU/Linux systems? Maybe. But aren't > all Guix packages built in isolated environments anyway? So, do > you really need packs to test on other systems? Maybe, but > probably not. > > Don't get me wrong, I find that Guix proper has many great features, > but pack is not one of them.=20=20 Don=E2=80=99t get me wrong, I agree! :-) Again, I think packs are useful in some cases where the other options are even worse, but I=E2=80=99m not advocating it as a general =E2=80=9Csol= ution.=E2=80=9D In the news entry online I tried to take into account the very legitimate criticisms you made, but perhaps the end result didn=E2=80=99t m= ake it sufficiently clear that packs aren=E2=80=99t a general solution. Ludo=E2=80=99.