On Thu 16 Mar 2017 23:01, Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> writes: > If [Guix] starts encouraging a decentralized approach, that would > result in strong pressure on us to freeze our API, which includes even > such details as which module each package is exported from. This > would drastically reduce the freedom Guix has to evolve the way its > packages are specified.
I get what you are saying. I think that if a future guildhall is decentralized but uses Guix it needs to minimize its burden on Guix. That could mean that the packages are actually specified in a different DSL with different stability characteristics -- for example that DSL could call specification->package under the hood for example, like Ludovic mentions. (I should mention that this idea of using Guix and especially all its errors are my own -- haven't talked to others about it yet!) Which module a package definition is in is a good example of something not to depend on. Basically I think Guix should be able to do what it wants to. The stability characteristics that Guix already has are sufficient for a Guildhall -- no additional maintenance burden intended and I hope no additional burden imposed. WDYT? Andy
