On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 07:10:44AM +0200, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote: > > The main problems with the current GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH approach are > > [...]you need a Guix source tree[...] > > Oh. Really? That seems like something that shouldn't be.
You are right. I am using this to fixate the Guix tree against packages. Guix itself is a moving target. > I have no experience with those languages. What do you see a ‘registry’ > for Guix being, exactly? Just a scheme or JSON file containg package info. > A long time ago — at least it seems like it[1] — I did run Exherbo, a > source-based distribution based in part on Gentoo. Unlike Gentoo, it had > no concept of a centralised package repository. I already like that ;) > Package repositories were simply git/svn/... trees hosted wherever. The > only difference between the core repository and the others was that it > was configured/trusted by default. You could remove it just like any > other, if you liked fixing your system. Exactly. > I was able to run the equivalent of, in Guix pseudocode: > > ~# guix package --install footools > guix package: error: footools: unknown package > [maybe it even suggested a list of repositories with packages > named ‘footools’, I don't remember] > > ~# guix repository --add my-cool-repository > [what is currently gnu/packages would be just another repository] > > ~# guix pull > [fetches all repositories from their own URI, no central point] > > ~# guix package --install footools > [footools is now installed] > > ~# guix package --install bar > guix package: error: ‘bar’ requires ‘(input "blah")’ which isn't in > any of your trusted repositories, try adding one of the following: ... > > It was an almost perfect system, IMO. Anyway, I'm definitely rambling. No no, you are getting my idea. > > Personally I think this will be very exciting. We can have a > > metaregistry that lists all these packages so everyone can track them. > > Definitely count me as excited, too. :-) > > Though if it's a fork, I'll cry. No fork. A fork does not scale. Pj.
