From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Aug 29 05:30:00 2018 Received: (at 22629) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Aug 2018 09:30:00 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36398 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fuwnX-0003P6-OO for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 05:29:59 -0400 Received: from [82.153.16.8] (port=57827 helo=ronja.pompo.co) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fuwnV-0003Ot-KW for 22629@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 05:29:58 -0400 Received: from rosser (unknown [87.236.135.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ronja.pompo.co (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BD149402FB; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 09:29:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pompo.co; s=mail; t=1535534991; bh=K2Cxt+/dXb6nAKRcFOvQo23p67M1o/Leue8Mg5W58A8=; h=References:From:To:Cc:Subject:Reply-To:In-reply-to:Date:From; b=g2iRy4PXsdZJxU9sIBYtn5+lJlgqm5KG7jcdQZ1oYO/QQwTX74UsRkZMt3uqzT1zZ wohnfAhI/4y6Ug8xRzsppjTIUpvkKT5yiUEiLOhGNonz4vcnGI8XfeNLXNdhKeiJX1 fxys5xiunpI/Q8PcHrtimZxTiq06lAYrhm8vw8gI= References: <87vb5vsffd.fsf@gnu.org> <87pny2iks2.fsf@gnu.org> <877ekagtg9.fsf@netris.org> User-agent: mu4e 1.0; emacs 26.1 From: Alex Sassmannshausen To: Mark H Weaver Subject: Re: bug#22629: Channels! In-reply-to: <877ekagtg9.fsf@netris.org> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 11:29:50 +0200 Message-ID: <87zhx5msfl.fsf@pompo.co> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 1.3 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Mark H Weaver writes: > Hi Ludovic, > > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: >> Currently third-party channels are expected to provide nothing but >> package modules. > > I'd like to say again that I have grave concerns that this could be the > death-knell for long-term innovation in Guix. It's likely that whenever > a change is proposed that will break these third-party channels, there > will be resistance, and efforts to preserve backward compatibility. [...] Content analysis details: (1.3 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid 1.3 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 22629 Cc: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , 22629@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: , Reply-To: alex@pompo.co Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) Mark H Weaver writes: > Hi Ludovic, > > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: >> Currently third-party channels are expected to provide nothing but >> package modules. > > I'd like to say again that I have grave concerns that this could be the > death-knell for long-term innovation in Guix. It's likely that whenever > a change is proposed that will break these third-party channels, there > will be resistance, and efforts to preserve backward compatibility. I understand your concerns and want to acknowledge those. My primary interest in channels at the moment comes from believing that having a "stable" channel would be incredibly useful to increase adoption rate of Guix. And for me. Currently upgrading my system involves doing a guix pull, then, over the course of a few days, doing guix package -u and bailing out if I start building a large program. After this I do guix system build, and bail out if a large program starts building. In either case, if an upgrade broke a dependency then I'm kind of stuck at the old versions of my profile. Finally, when I've upgrade profile and system, I immediately run guix pull to prepare for the next cycle. I consider myself pretty capable, and I find this process stressful =E2=80= =94 I certainly cannot envisage most of my currently interested friends going through this process=E2=80=A6 But like I say, this is not to discount your concerns, it is merely to add to the list of reasons why channels might be important. Best wishes, Alex > Even things as seemingly innocuous as moving a package from one module > to another will impact these third-party channels, not to mention > changing our internal APIs or making fundamental changes to the way > packages are specified. > > Part of why I'm so interested in Guix is because it currently has nearly > unconstrained potential to grow into something far more beautiful and > elegant than it is today. > > I fear that with the introduction of channels, that potential will be > drastically curtailed, and that we're essentially trading our future > potential for what will in practice, most likely, be primarily used to > facilitate the use of non-free software on Guix. > > When I start to see signs of resistance to changes for the sake of > third-party channels, then I'll know I was right to be fearful, and > Guix will become far less interesting to me. > > Mark