From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Wingo Subject: Re: Introducing =?utf-8?B?4oCYZ3VpeCBwYWNr4oCZ?= Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:48:53 +0100 Message-ID: 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> 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]:52450) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cqHMK-0005Nm-2m for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 06:49:49 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cqHMG-0007Ra-25 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 06:49:48 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87fui8m3vz.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s=22'?= =?utf-8?Q?s?= message of "Mon, 20 Mar 2017 15:14:40 +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: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel , Federico Beffa On Mon 20 Mar 2017 15:14, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > Federico Beffa skribis: > >> If you provide an archive such as >> 'guile-2.2.0-pack-x86_64-linux-gnu.tar.lz' reachable from the main >> project page (especially without any warning about its intended >> purpose), I bet that many peoples will install it and keep it. If more >> projects follow this example, we land to the above scenario where "rm >> -rf /gnu" is not practical at all. Replying to Federico: These are the same considerations as with Guix fwiw, unless you remove old profiles and "guix gc". Another solution to this concern is to remove /gnu/store and re-unpack the tarballs that you still want. Generally though I think we shouldn't expect people to access the store directly; they'd only use /opt/gnu or whatever. In the case that you have upgraded the software, surely the problem is fixed (though of course you may fix the problem for pack A but not pack B). The natural solution is to use a package manager of course, as you note :) > I agree, there=E2=80=99s always a risk. I think what we can do is commun= icate > about these risks, and avoid using distributing packs in situations that > make it too likely that people will keep the pack without ever > upgrading. Agreed, though I wouldn't over-stress the risks to be honest -- Guix gives both users and distributors the ability to generate a new pack easily. A user can decide not to upgrade even in a system that is managed by Guix. User freedom is all of this :) Andy