Hi Mark, > I'm not sure what you're trying to argue above. To me, it looks like an > argument in favor of my position, namely that a stable version of Guix > should include _all_ of Guix, not just the packages.
All, probably not, some, probably yes. What I am arguing is that the productive coexistence of a stable version with the bleeding-edge version requires agreement on a stable foundation. Where exactly the borderline lies between this foundation and what is built on top of it is not a question I am sufficiently qualified to answer. The minimal stable foundation would have to include the file system layout of profiles, to make sure that users can mix packages from both versions safely. It would also be highly desirable to share the store, whose layout would then have to be part of the foundation as well. Moreover, I suspect it would be preferable or even necessary to have only one daemon running - if that's true, then the daemon's communication protocol would have be part of the foundation as well. Without a common foundation, a stable version would have to be a completely autonomous fork, which should then probably adopt a different name as well. I don't think this is desirable, in particular for GuixSD which would lose most of its interest if it required multiple package managers. Konrad.
