EuAndreh <e...@euandre.org> skribis: > My proposal was a little more crude: get the channel code from a tarball. In > this model there are no authentications with fingerprint or signed commits, > neither "guix pull" would know much about the before/after state of a channel > besides comparing the checksum of the whole tarball. > > This lower level abstraction is much less sofisticated, and would probably > mean > refetching and rebuilding from tarball-backed channels than Git channels. But > this also means that the requirement is lower, and much more universal: a > tarball file served over HTTP, compared to a specific Git HTTP protocol.
Note that we already have -L and GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH as an alternative to full-blown channels. I’d recommend using that when in need of a lightweight alternative. How does that sound? Thanks, Ludo’.
