Hi Konrad, Konrad Hinsen <konrad.hin...@fastmail.net> skribis:
> 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. These are all things that very rarely, if ever, changed over the last 5 years. I expect the change rate to remain the same. :-) You seem to be arguing of a “stable” branch in the sense that the Guix tools (the CLI in particular) wouldn’t change much, is that correct? I’m asking because there are several ways to define “stable.” Initially I thought what you had in mind was like the “stable” branch in Debian, meaning that packages only get security updates. To me that’s a different thing. Ludo’.
