Hi Konrad, On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 at 07:27, Konrad Hinsen <konrad.hin...@fastmail.net> wrote:
> two dimensions I mentioned, this should include shareable/re-usable > vs. personal. People publish and share Docker images, so why wouldn't > they publish and share Guix super-packages? I am not sure to see which feature is missing. - Channels allow to share package definition; - Publish allows to share pre-built binaries; - Pack allows to share images. So what should be missing should be a central server collecting all to ease, à la DockerHub. >From my point of view, ephemeral (environment) vs persistent (profile) depends on use-case but at the end the only concern is: how to populate them? And the only answer should be: declarative (manifest); the ad-hoc (package -i) should not be the usual way but only a quick&dirt test. Therefore ephemeral (environment) vs persistent (package --profile) should be compliant. Especially about composition. However, as discussed elsewhere about manifest and the time-machine patch -- I have not tried yet --, the manifest file perhaps needs more fine control to better describe the channels, substitutes etc.. > This third dimension also > raises the question of where the information (profiles, manifests, ...) > are stored and managed (version control?), Profiles are managed by Guix, isn't it? I mean their information are in generations, from my understanding. Manifests are managed by the user. And they does what they wants. ;-) > and how they are referred to > (name, filename, ...). Do you mean that guix environment -m https://example.com/my-manifest.scm should be possible? All the best, simon