Re: guix is the guildhall that we always wanted!

[Andy Wingo]

On Thu 16 Mar 2017 23:01, Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> writes:

> If [Guix] starts encouraging a decentralized approach, that would
> result in strong pressure on us to freeze our API, which includes even
> such details as which module each package is exported from.  This
> would drastically reduce the freedom Guix has to evolve the way its
> packages are specified.

I get what you are saying.  I think that if a future guildhall is
decentralized but uses Guix it needs to minimize its burden on Guix.
That could mean that the packages are actually specified in a different
DSL with different stability characteristics -- for example that DSL
could call specification->package under the hood for example, like
Ludovic mentions.  (I should mention that this idea of using Guix and
especially all its errors are my own -- haven't talked to others about
it yet!)

Which module a package definition is in is a good example of something
not to depend on.

Basically I think Guix should be able to do what it wants to.  The
stability characteristics that Guix already has are sufficient for a
Guildhall -- no additional maintenance burden intended and I hope no
additional burden imposed.

WDYT?

Andy