Andy Wingo writes: > On Thu 16 Mar 2017 23:01, Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> 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.
This makes sense to me... if it really is true that our scheme'y Guildhall-style packages are so simple they're more data than code, maybe we could even restrict them to... just data. Just a list of what files are being provided, etc. That could easily be stored in some minimal database. I guess I'm saying +1.
