From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Josh Marshall Subject: Re: Can general compute and packaging be more formally merged into a single case? Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 19:16:23 -0500 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55906) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1icILY-0000AO-KM for help-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Dec 2019 19:16:55 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1icILT-0002wC-U2 for help-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Dec 2019 19:16:45 -0500 Received: from mail-qk1-x72e.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::72e]:43680) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1icILP-0002qh-PQ for help-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Dec 2019 19:16:40 -0500 Received: by mail-qk1-x72e.google.com with SMTP id q28so5407248qkn.10 for ; Tue, 03 Dec 2019 16:16:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-guix-bounces+gcggh-help-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Help-Guix" To: zimoun Cc: help-guix Neat! I'll go digging and see what I can find. On Tue, Dec 3, 2019, 16:22 zimoun wrote: > Hi Josh > > On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 at 18:34, Josh Marshall > wrote: > > > > At the airport, thinking on the fundamental differences between gwl and > > guix. It seems like these can be articulated as the same case when > > considering a tracked and linked compute history. > > On gwl-devel@gnu.org, from my understanding, we are discussing that > and it seems related to the Content Addressable Store (CAS). > > Otherwise, about the differences between GWL and Guix, you can dig in > some archeology; especially read the initial proposal by Roel and the > comments by Ludo. (I think I already pointed to you where the related > messages live.) > > > How I see this, when packaging you take checksums off of inputs not for > > your own assurance that they are correct (though you could) but to ensure > > that under different circumstances another user can be sure that they > have > > the right starting points. Then as a matter of storing results and > > ensuring the integrity of our results for later we take more checksums. > > What we can do is to create a unit computational step of sorts whereby a > > user enters a monitored shell whereby they install packages, perform > their > > work, and produce changes which can be taken to be outputs. > > This already works in GWL. :-) > > >All downloads, > > uploads, and files changes tracked. > > To me, it is not clear how GWL should track this because they can be > really huge. > > > Then perform a basic minimization > > algorithm to reduce the inputs so long as the outputs do not differ. > > Which kind of minimization algorithm do you have in mind? > > > This > > optimized unit computational step can then be tracked with the input > > checksums and outputs. This merges general compute and packaging, then > > adding compute power only needs to scale here. > > > > From these, computational chains may also be produced to know a full > graph > > of what is happening. Thoughts? > > It is already the case. If I understand well. > > > All the best, > simon >