From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Aug 29 11:30:22 2018 Received: (at 22629) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Aug 2018 15:30:22 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37294 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fv2QI-0005xQ-6y for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 11:30:22 -0400 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:38131) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fv2QH-0005xI-2u for 22629@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 11:30:21 -0400 Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 003BB22086; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 11:30:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 29 Aug 2018 11:30:20 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.net; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=y/4F+lL4AukRolg8gNKUd4VL8o3uK 5/qmh54Mg1Dlvc=; b=bX11FaocVrp7j5HmoeC5phlMqjrbm3lCLJ43KiBNYrdGK IWknRsY/etyV468y42uNni1P7QkivhHuSiQHEUHyl+bbIRjY+d8Oy4Y8Vf2snmRp bOQIbcGIxW0SQj8dDO27OF80S8ssa6RGxJK3MjDtcr85uum0BSAw1D+0KlH2s0qo DJ3ChH2yRePia+UJPsUwnPp5Y/m22ViI8RnQBx9673yer89EV1EjH7SNEVgApsbz MIjRyalgCHqiDoahXF17ufAUCDQZMugVv3NjMY8pmYZGXOGfGxr9BN3bWLmoZIaw yztkrAkHaLNK5G2iRjXb31TN3qbMmcD5O8LD2qHhw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=y/4F+l L4AukRolg8gNKUd4VL8o3uK5/qmh54Mg1Dlvc=; b=hNSoaXrsGbGKf/6BuHWxgb X75Jl77c9/6X9YXvRHnOMZ+XR7QsPmcDjQEgp0xU8yePKqx0iEG6b4tg4FQSlgWE UwJwEj9KktOhXcxfQItDyU3LBzI/+5317AhOPqHGp/ekrudMtwBjhyVusbiYo5SP HuMnO5Dr07kjO5Rljcn/FwyNRDFeuDjWbir3wi+JAUEdzhEzE9Z250w14B7LcKf7 Wf8veG2qaR9xn0pwtbCU8/FkS8YXXoB4FLCuEj2zT+Icdp1tvrfKE86bJ9n3YOGs CIb4bWeRErnrzyehNyRO0Q6zhec/saFAQ4tt6fVI6awKnPKGz9ZPt0BfhR1i9+tw == X-ME-Proxy: X-ME-Sender: Received: from ordinateur-de-catherine--konrad.home (lfbn-1-4181-102.w92-169.abo.wanadoo.fr [92.169.174.102]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 8C27B102AB; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 11:30:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Konrad Hinsen To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Subject: Re: bug#22629: Channels! In-Reply-To: <87efeh9rm8.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87vb5vsffd.fsf@gnu.org> <87pny2iks2.fsf@gnu.org> <877ekagtg9.fsf@netris.org> <87efeh9rm8.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 17:30:14 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 22629 Cc: Mark H Weaver , 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: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) Hi Ludo, > Mark=E2=80=99s concern is not about whether packages are the latest versi= on, > etc. It=E2=80=99s about the constraints that could result from widespread > development of channels outside Guix proper: technically all of Guix is That's how I understood it as well. If/when Guix becomes somebody else's dependency, then there will be pressure on stability in Guix itself. My point is that this will happen anyway if Guix is adopted more widely. Every manifest file, personal or shared as part of a software package ("guix.scm"), relies on the same technical details as a channel. Introducing channels only makes the issue more visible. And this is really the same issue as with the stability of the packages themselves, Guix being a kind of superpackage. Most people want agility for the software layer they are most concerned with, and stability for all layers below it. For Mark (and certainly others here), Guix happens to be the layer they are most concerned with. > I=E2=80=99d rather not build fancy mechanisms just for the sake of extern= al > channels, and I certainly don=E2=80=99t want to commit to API stability. = We At this point, certainly not. But I agree with Mark that, if channels "take off", there will be pressure in that direction. Konrad.