From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Thompson, David" Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_=E2=80=98guix_publish=E2=80=99_now_compresses_archives?= Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 11:58:34 -0400 Message-ID: References: <878twytwlp.fsf@gnu.org> <20160719062915.3cdpmb6xhcg3l6mw@venom> <877fchkbut.fsf@gnu.org> <20160719134245.jyk3m6cs5374bwso@crashnator.suse.cz> <20160719155024.ti4bqvenntoucgmz@crashnator.suse.cz> <20160720130559.n44vau4iysyn7qlz@crashnator.suse.cz> <87shv3eese.fsf@mdc-berlin.de> 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]:36895) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bQGMw-0005in-Eq for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 11:58:42 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bQGMv-0000i1-Bt for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 11:58:38 -0400 Received: from mail-vk0-x229.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400c:c05::229]:32826) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bQGMv-0000hx-7u for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 11:58:37 -0400 Received: by mail-vk0-x229.google.com with SMTP id x130so119858092vkc.0 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:58:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87shv3eese.fsf@mdc-berlin.de> 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: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: guix-devel On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 1:33 AM, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > > Thompson, David writes: > >> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 =C4=8Cech wrote: >> >>> First, I'm not saying that we should do that for every archive, but I >>> think that having a way how to automatically export this information >>> would be great and I see it as a week point for using Guix packages as >>> alternative to Snappy or Flatpak. >> >> I don't really understand the point of this back-and-forth. It's >> quite simple: If the user builds the same package expression with the >> same version of Guix, they will get the same result if the build is >> deterministic. I don't understand the contrast with Snappy and >> Flatpak because they don't provide this feature at all, opting instead >> to provide opaque binaries with no real provenance. I can only assume >> that there is some fundamental misunderstanding about Guix going on >> here. > > The point is that exporting a store item (or a package closure) is the > moral equivalent to producing an opaque binary. The claim is that Guix > could do better here. I agree to the first part but I=E2=80=99m not sure= about > the second part. It would be very nice if Guix really *could* do better > here without having to embed a copy of itself to each exported package. Derivations are purposely a one-way street. There's *no* way to get from the derivation back to the source. You always want to go from the source to the derivation. I think we're asking the wrong question here. It's not "I have a binary, now where is the source?", it's "I have the source, now is there a binary available?" - Dave