From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jun 12 09:32:14 2016 Received: (at 17152) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Jun 2016 13:32:14 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37746 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bC5Us-0001tC-EW for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 12 Jun 2016 09:32:14 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:36838) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bC5Uq-0001sw-E7 for 17152@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 12 Jun 2016 09:32:12 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bC5Ui-0006rM-3e for 17152@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 12 Jun 2016 09:32:07 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:40419) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bC5Ui-0006rG-0W; Sun, 12 Jun 2016 09:32:04 -0400 Received: from reverse-83.fdn.fr ([80.67.176.83]:42296 helo=pluto) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1bC5Ug-00068C-4x; Sun, 12 Jun 2016 09:32:02 -0400 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) To: =?utf-8?Q?K=E1=BA=8Fra?= Subject: Re: bug#17152: References: Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 15:31:59 +0200 In-Reply-To: (=?utf-8?Q?=22K=E1=BA=8Fra=22's?= message of "Mon, 31 Mar 2014 17:14:53 -0400") Message-ID: <87lh2amt2o.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-Spam-Score: -6.4 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 17152 Cc: 17152@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -6.4 (------) Hi! K=E1=BA=8Fra skribis: > I also filed against PackageKit here: > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D76810 FWIW, a Nix back-end has just been merged: https://github.com/hughsie/PackageKit/pull/126 https://github.com/hughsie/PackageKit/pull/126/commits/108da8ed6784673758= ea7a7a240eda0f8bdddc28 I think a Guix back-end may be simpler, notably because Guix has a notion of package whereas all Nix sees is derivations, which are low-level. The Guix back-end, as I imagine, could essentially embed Guile into PackageKit and have most of the code written in Scheme. That way it could trivially use all the support code we have in (guix profiles), (guix packages), and (gnu packages). Any takers? :-) Ludo=E2=80=99.