Hi
On 2018-11-08 16:31, Adam Van Ymeren wrote:
On November 8, 2018 4:43:23 AM EST, Thorsten Wilms <t...@freenet.de> wrote:
On 08/11/2018 10.09, swedebugia wrote:
https://www.slant.co/topics/344/~best-linux-package-managers
Insights from the Guix-section:
4 pros: (missing the roll-back feature) see link.
1 cons:
"Cannot handle filetypes that have different semantics across
different
versions
While the functional approach that Guix takes is great for sandboxing
binary artifacts of packages, it seriously lacks any power in
handling
configuration files or user data. It's difficult to upgrade and
downgrade files where semantics and syntax can change between
versions."
Do you agree with this critique?
The best handling of configuration files I got to know is offered by
Debian, which, if a package comes with a new configuration file, asks
what to do about it. Better than nothing, but still not exactly a good
user experience. There quite simply isn't the right level of
granularity
and encoding of intentions given with plain text configuration files.
Guix is in a position to do better than most in this area. I love how most
services in Guix are configured via s-expressions which then generate the
appropriate plain text config from that. Don't have to learn a new syntax for
every service.
It also means that configurations are usable data in the Guix world, allowing
us to automatically upgrade configs to new syntax if a package decides to
change it.
I totally agree!
The Scheme s-expressions was a somewhat steep learning curve but now
having passed it and beginning to understand the error messages from the
Guile IT IS AWESOME.
1 powerful extension language to rule all the packages and configuration
files :D
I keep track of my config.scm with git and it is simple to see the
changes over time as I customize and tweak things.
I wish Guix had existed when I started with GNU/Linux 15 years ago. I
began with Xandros and then moved on to Debian, Ubuntu and then Parabola.
--
Cheers
Swedebugia
