Il giorno lun, 31/05/2021 alle 19.47 +0200, Pjotr Prins ha scritto: > On Sun, May 30, 2021 at 09:17:20PM +0200, Konrad Hinsen wrote: > > How about pushing all the other package manager towards producing > > sexp-packs, and helping them to get there? > > I have a feeling they won't be that interested ;). > > My thoughts are that every software package simply consists of files > that need to be compiled (if not interpreted) and be copied in place. > > As Guix takes care of the first and the last - the issue centers > around building. The idea is to dress down these language specific > builders, such as cargo, so you don't have all the included > complexity. > > A sexp-pack would represent the most simple build instructions to > build a package on its own. Now, of course the current guix-builders > solve that too. But, what I am proposing is to split out the actual > build step into a package definition, so as to present something > simpler to Guix. > > I found a cargo -> ninja converter. It is that kind of idea. Guix > would use ninja with rustc instead of cargo. A stripped down cargo > could potentially work too - but cargo is a complex beast. > > A simplified build step would make it easier to troubleshoot these > packages. > > See what I mean?
You mean to break the chain introducing an intermediate step With intermediate step, I mean a new kind of entity with its own format I like the idea Many times, breaking long chains makes them more understandable to me It's the old idea of composability, if you want It's like refactoring a huge procedure in several smaller ones It also resembles a sort of ETL process or some sort of "data science" task of "massaging" data for some later analisys phase In a way, doing this would in itself push language communities to think about their approach (of releasing blobs) I doubt they would start such an initiative themselves, they wouldn't have begun releasing blobs in the first place
