Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 05:40:49AM +0200, Pjotr Prins wrote: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:21:43AM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > I like the idea! (With the caveat that, again, external repos can break > > anytime.) > > > > Partly related to that: > >

Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:21:43AM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > I like the idea! (With the caveat that, again, external repos can break > anytime.) > > Partly related to that: > . Actually very much related because a git pull attached to a gi

Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries

Hello, Ricardo Wurmus skribis: > Currently, GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH depends on some manual work to be done > first. Finding a third-party repository, downloading it, updating it > separately from Guix itself (it won’t get updated via “guix pull”), > setting the variable. > > When binary substitutes a

Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries

On Sun 24 Jul 2016 15:58, Andreas Enge writes: > A problem, as mentioned in another reply, is the lack of people doing code > review, which is not a very rewarding task. That can be changed by everyone > of us :-) Could we just focus on this problem perhaps? One of the issues is that there's no

Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries

On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 10:35:43PM +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: What do you think about that? Does this align with your vision? What do others think? Is this something that would benefit the Guix project and its audience? I like the idea a lot. I'm only concerned with security of such thing

Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 05:42:20AM +0200, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote: > Pjotr, > > On 2016-07-25 04:10, Pjotr Prins wrote: > >Support for multiple GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH's would be first priority. > > I'm taking it you're not talking about colon-separation (which > is already supported, though I have

Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries

Pjotr, On 2016-07-25 04:10, Pjotr Prins wrote: Support for multiple GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH's would be first priority. I'm taking it you're not talking about colon-separation (which is already supported, though I haven't tried it) but something more? I'm interested :-) Kind regards, T G-R -- Sen

Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries

On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 10:35:43PM +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > Could it be enough if Guix offered a simpler way to fetch package > definitions and (optionally) binary substitutes from a third party who > maintains both the package definitions and (optionally) distributes > pre-built binary subst

Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries

Hi, Mark H Weaver skribis: > It's crucially important to the future vitality of this project that we > retain our freedom to evolve the design of Guix, the way packages are > specified in Guix, as well as the set of core packages. These freedoms > will be drastically curtailed if we support a d

Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries

Hi Pjotr, > Registries solve the mentioned problems of GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH: > > 1. People are not aware about the work of others > 2. Slightly complicated (you need a Guix source tree etc.) > 3. No binary distribution When I first read your email I thought you proposed a mechanism that extends GUI

Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries

Jookia <166...@gmail.com> writes: > I think the clearest system is a way to have multiple guixes installed at > once. > Other package managers need not do this, but as long as the daemon > compatiblity > is kept it should be fine. There could be a guix-jookia, guix-nonfree for > those > that r

Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 01:21:50AM +1000, Jookia wrote: Even worse, if I want to reply to an issue on a mailing list that I'm not subscribed to, it's difficult. I still haven't figured it out, maybe you can go to the archive and download an mbox and look at the reference and ask yo

Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries

Hello again, On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 01:21:50AM +1000, Jookia wrote: > An issue tracker that you can reply to by the web would be much much better, > because there's less things to go wrong and less ways to be shamed for. I've > suggested this many times and the only responses I've heard are 'no'

Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries

On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 03:58:28PM +0200, Andreas Enge wrote: > One of my main concerns with your suggestion (besides the technical one) is > that I do not think it lowers the barrier to entry, but it diverts the > efforts. With package repositories full of packages around, where a half- > baked re

Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries

Hello, On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 05:30:27AM +0200, Pjotr Prins wrote: > 2. Slightly complicated (you need a Guix source tree etc.) as far as I understand it, our "data is code" approach makes it necessary to have the Guix tree around in any case. "guix package -i ruby" looks up the package variable

Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries

Hi, Mark H Weaver writes: > Pjotr Prins writes: > >> How about the following: >> >> 1. Separate from the GNU project, we create a number of registries of >>online git repos without opinion (i.e., anything goes, it is up to >>the authors). A registry can contain the work of multiple pack

Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries

On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 08:37:34AM +0200, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote: > Eeh. IMO, let's not drag unfree software into this. It's not the > motivation, and I can't see it helping anyone's cause or mood. It's the only example I can think of easily that Guix will not merge in any case, yet users may

Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries

On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 03:29:49AM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote: > If we did choose to present a stable API, we would need people to > maintain it. In my mind we don't need much of an API. We need a way for plugins to tell what hooks they provide and then call into these hooks. That is all. Plugins d

Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries

On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 01:29:20AM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote: > Long ago, the Linux developers made a conscious decision to not support > out-of-tree drivers, for much the same reasons. Many times over the > years, they have made changes to their internal APIs that required > corresponding change

Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries

On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 08:28:30AM +0200, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote: > > if we support a decentralized system of externally-managed > > repositories. > > No. Break them. > > If you're running an external Guix repository and don't bother to follow > the main development branch(es) with some att

Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries

OK, one more... On 24/07/2016 7:48, Jookia wrote: > I think the clearest system is a way to have multiple guixes > installed at once. Other package managers need not do this, but as > long as the daemon compatiblity is kept it should be fine. There > could be a guix-jookia, guix-nonfree for tho

Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries

Mark, On 24/07/2016 7:29, Mark H Weaver wrote: > Long ago, the Linux developers made a conscious decision to not > support out-of-tree drivers, for much the same reasons. Many times > over the years, they have made changes to their internal APIs that > required corresponding changes to a large

Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries

On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 01:29:20AM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote: > It's crucially important to the future vitality of this project that we > retain our freedom to evolve the design of Guix, the way packages are > specified in Guix, as well as the set of core packages. These freedoms > will be drasti

Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries

Pjotr Prins writes: > How about the following: > > 1. Separate from the GNU project, we create a number of registries of >online git repos without opinion (i.e., anything goes, it is up to >the authors). A registry can contain the work of multiple packages >and multiple authors. > > 2

Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries

Another interesting thought would be to even generalize the idea of plugins: guix package --plugin http://URL/registry-plugin.scm -A ruby -- --registry http://my-registry/list.scm guix package --plugin http://URL/registry-plugin.scm -i ruby-package -- --registry http://my-registry/list.scm

Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries

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 tre

Re: A registry for distributed sources and binaries

Pjotr, On 24/07/2016 5:30, Pjotr Prins wrote: > After some thought I am coming to the following: my primary goals are > to lower the barrier to entry, scale out development of Guix packages > and have people collaborate on each others packages without some > centralized 'opinion'. I've also been