Re: Adoption of Nix?
Sorry, I forgot about the debian-devel for the second time. :( -- Forwarded message -- From: Artyom Shalkhakov Date: 2008/12/24 Subject: Re: Adoption of Nix? To: Всеволод Величко Hi Vsevolod, 2008/12/24 Всеволод Величко : > Well, as I see, it uses it's own package format, which is > wrapper-description around everything - source, deb or rpm. Does it > really have any sense? "Every problem in computer science can be solved by adding a layer of indirection", as the saying goes. > We have our deb and src packages, do we really need any > wrappers, that make us possible to install rpms? For what > purposes? > Surely, dpkg always allows you to rollback any installed > packages. You just sometimes have to rollback half of all your > packages - in accordance with dependencies. > I've just looked to the structure of that package format - it also > requires to write dependencies - so what in it deals with 'em better? > I really don't understand. The difference is *purity*, which means that Nix expressions are *deterministic*. And that's what really makes them better. > Can it work with sections like "Recommends" or "Suggests"? I don't know this yet, but I think it's nearly trivial to add. > And, of course, for the 2-3 versions of each package will make debian > security team curse you for ages. Consider it :) Thanks for the advice, point taken. :) Cheers, Artyom Shalkhakov. PS do you work for Nigma, an "intelligent search engine"?
Re: Adoption of Nix?
Sorry, I forgot to forward this to debian-devel. -- Forwarded message -- From: Artyom Shalkhakov Date: 2008/12/24 Subject: Re: Adoption of Nix? To: "Eugene V. Lyubimkin" 2008/12/24 Eugene V. Lyubimkin : > Which means that "find all dependencies with no exceptions" is not true. This is how Nix developers put it: > Runtime dependencies are found by scanning binaries for the hash parts > of Nix store paths (such as r8vvq9kq…). This sounds risky, but it works > extremely well. (See <http://nixos.org/about.html>, section called "Complete dependencies".) > If edited by administrator config file was deleted, then or it cannot be > reverted, or it was not purged. Most other stuff can be reverted in theory... > but again, Debian package maintainer scripts don't support downgrading (in > general), and there are reasons for it. Take another point of view: every Nix package exists in an ideal world where the only packages it knows about are it's dependencies (and their precise versions). > One big fact is: Debian have tens (or even hundreds) of tools that use apt > infrastructure, including both user side and archive maintenance side. Nix, in > any way it operates, suggests other API to maintain packages. Who is supposed > to rewrite all this stuff for Nix? You're probably right: nobody is going for a full rewrite. I guess I should inspect both Nix and dpkg more closely, and if I can find a one-to-one mapping between the two, then we can go for an automatic migration. > Yes, you are probably right: I don't understand how Nix may be useful for > Debian (and for GNU/Linux also). That's too bad for you. Shallow thinking doesn't get you anywhere. Cheers, Artyom Shalkhakov.
Re: Adoption of Nix?
Hi Eugene, 2008/12/24 Eugene V. Lyubimkin : >> The claims that I think are valuable are: >> - *all* dependencies of a package are automatically found by Nix, >> no exceptions, > Hmm... Nix probably use libastral, doesn't it? Even for C/C++ programs there > is no way to 100% automatically determine entire list of runtime > libraries/tools needed for some particular program (consider runtime library > opening and all non-library dependencies). This is not about libastral, it's about pure functions (those without side-effects). Regarding "runtime library opening" (I suppose, you meant dlopen and friends), then I suppose, you've found an exception to the rule, but maybe you are wrong. I'm not a developer of Nix, so I can't say more. >> - updates and rollbacks are atomic, an update can never break >> your system. > This cannot be true. Consider package maintainer scripts. And, for example. > purge of config files cannot be reverted. It can always be reverted if you don't "destructively update" (overwrite) files and if you can guarantee that filenames do not clash. > It has nothing to do with our apt infrastructure, it doesn't > understand it and invented its own wheel. I think no way for Nix in Debian. We > have excellent dpkg, we have not-so-excellent, but rather good apt, and > significant amount of Debian users choose Debian just only because of apt. > IMO. I'm not interested in your opinion if it isn't backed by facts, I'm interested in *informative discussion*. I don't say that dpkg/apt are bad, on the contrary, I think they are good, but we aren't talking about personal tastes. It looks like you completely misunderstood the idea, so lurk before you post. Thanks. Cheers, Artyom Shalkhakov. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Adoption of Nix?
Hello, Cite from the homepage: > Nix is a purely functional package manager. It allows multiple > versions of a package to be installed side-by-side, ensures that > dependency specifications are complete, supports atomic > upgrades and rollbacks, allows non-root users to install software, > and has many other features. The claims that I think are valuable are: - *all* dependencies of a package are automatically found by Nix, no exceptions, - updates and rollbacks are atomic, an update can never break your system. What do you think of adopting Nix as a package management tool for Debian? I would like to accentuate that I seek an informative discussion, not a holy war. Cheers, Artyom Shalkhakov. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
