[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries
From: |
Pjotr Prins |
Subject: |
Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries |
Date: |
Sun, 24 Jul 2016 07:16:15 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 07:10:44AM +0200, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote:
> > The main problems with the current GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH approach are
> > [...]you need a Guix source tree[...]
>
> Oh. Really? That seems like something that shouldn't be.
You are right. I am using this to fixate the Guix tree against
packages. Guix itself is a moving target.
> I have no experience with those languages. What do you see a ‘registry’
> for Guix being, exactly?
Just a scheme or JSON file containg package info.
> A long time ago — at least it seems like it[1] — I did run Exherbo, a
> source-based distribution based in part on Gentoo. Unlike Gentoo, it had
> no concept of a centralised package repository.
I already like that ;)
> Package repositories were simply git/svn/... trees hosted wherever. The
> only difference between the core repository and the others was that it
> was configured/trusted by default. You could remove it just like any
> other, if you liked fixing your system.
Exactly.
> I was able to run the equivalent of, in Guix pseudocode:
>
> ~# guix package --install footools
> guix package: error: footools: unknown package
> [maybe it even suggested a list of repositories with packages
> named ‘footools’, I don't remember]
>
> ~# guix repository --add my-cool-repository
> [what is currently gnu/packages would be just another repository]
>
> ~# guix pull
> [fetches all repositories from their own URI, no central point]
>
> ~# guix package --install footools
> [footools is now installed]
>
> ~# guix package --install bar
> guix package: error: ‘bar’ requires ‘(input "blah")’ which isn't in
> any of your trusted repositories, try adding one of the following: ...
>
> It was an almost perfect system, IMO. Anyway, I'm definitely rambling.
No no, you are getting my idea.
> > Personally I think this will be very exciting. We can have a
> > metaregistry that lists all these packages so everyone can track them.
>
> Definitely count me as excited, too. :-)
>
> Though if it's a fork, I'll cry.
No fork. A fork does not scale.
Pj.
- Re: none, (continued)
- Re: none, Tomáš Čech, 2016/07/23
- Review process, Ludovic Courtès, 2016/07/22
- Re: Review process, Pjotr Prins, 2016/07/22
- Re: Review process, Alex Kost, 2016/07/23
- Re: Review process, Mathieu Lirzin, 2016/07/23
- Re: Review process, Alex Kost, 2016/07/24
- Re: Review process, Mathieu Lirzin, 2016/07/24
- Re: Review process, Ludovic Courtès, 2016/07/24
- A registry for distributed sources and binaries, Pjotr Prins, 2016/07/23
- Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice, 2016/07/24
- Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries,
Pjotr Prins <=
- Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries, Pjotr Prins, 2016/07/24
- Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries, Mark H Weaver, 2016/07/24
- Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries, Jookia, 2016/07/24
- Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice, 2016/07/24
- Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries, Jookia, 2016/07/24
- Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries, Ricardo Wurmus, 2016/07/24
- Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice, 2016/07/24
- Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries, Pjotr Prins, 2016/07/24
- Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries, Leo Famulari, 2016/07/24
- Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries, Pjotr Prins, 2016/07/24