Hello,
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis:
>
>> The patches that follow implement this last bit, though in a slightly
>> different way. Users would now have the option to provide
>> ~/.config/guix/channels.scm along these lines:
>>
>> (cons (channe
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis:
> The patches that follow implement this last bit, though in a slightly
> different way. Users would now have the option to provide
> ~/.config/guix/channels.scm along these lines:
>
> (cons (channel
> (name 'guix-hpc)
> (url "https://gi
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 coexi
Konrad Hinsen writes:
>> I also agree with you that we don’t need channels for providing a stable
>> branch. The biggest obstacle to providing a stable branch is not
>> technical, but it requires people maintaining it.
>
> Look at this from the opposite end: if you were interested in
> maintaini
Hi Ricardo,
> I also agree with you that we don’t need channels for providing a stable
> branch. The biggest obstacle to providing a stable branch is not
> technical, but it requires people maintaining it.
Look at this from the opposite end: if you were interested in
maintaining a stable softwar
Hello Guix,
Mark H Weaver skribis:
> Both of you seem to have reached the conclusion that third-party
> channels are a prerequisite for having a 'stable' branch. I disagree.
Same here. We could already be doing that (I’m skeptical about the
feasibility, maintainability, and relevance of a “st
Hello Konrad,
Konrad Hinsen skribis:
>> Mark’s concern is not about whether packages are the latest version,
>> etc. It’s about the constraints that could result from widespread
>> development of channels outside Guix proper: technically all of Guix is
>
> That's how I understood it as well. If
Hi Mark,
> I'd like to say again that I have grave concerns that this could be the
> death-knell for long-term innovation in Guix. It's likely that whenever
> a change is proposed that will break these third-party channels, there
> will be resistance, and efforts to preserve backward compatibil
Hi,
Alex Sassmannshausen writes:
> My primary interest in channels at the moment comes from believing that
> having a "stable" channel would be incredibly useful to increase
> adoption rate of Guix. And for me.
Konrad Hinsen writes:
> Look at the wider Linux world: there are people who want to
Hi Ludo,
> Mark’s concern is not about whether packages are the latest version,
> etc. It’s about the constraints that could result from widespread
> development of channels outside Guix proper: technically all of Guix is
That's how I understood it as well. If/when Guix becomes somebody else's
d
Hi Konrad,
Konrad Hinsen skribis:
> Look at the wider Linux world: there are people who want to live on
> the bleeding edge and run Arch Linux, and there are others who value
> stability and run CentOS. Today's Guix is more on the bleeding edge
> side. My understanding of your commment is that y
Mark H Weaver writes:
> Hi Ludovic,
>
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> Currently third-party channels are expected to provide nothing but
>> package modules.
>
> I'd like to say again that I have grave concerns that this could be the
> death-knell for long-term innovation in Guix. It
Hi Mark,
I'd like to say again that I have grave concerns that this could be the > death-knell for long-term innovation in Guix. It's likely that
whenever> a change is proposed that will break these third-party
channels, there> will be resistance, and efforts to preserve backward
compatibilit
Hi Mark,
Mark H Weaver skribis:
> I'd like to say again that I have grave concerns that this could be the
> death-knell for long-term innovation in Guix. It's likely that whenever
> a change is proposed that will break these third-party channels, there
> will be resistance, and efforts to prese
Hi Ludovic,
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Currently third-party channels are expected to provide nothing but
> package modules.
I'd like to say again that I have grave concerns that this could be the
death-knell for long-term innovation in Guix. It's likely that whenever
a change is p
Ludo, I am so ready to try this!
GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH is killing me though it got a lot better after
latest guix pull developments.
Tell me what to run.
Pj.
Hi Guix!
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis:
> • Have a “channel” mechanism, similar to ‘nix-channel’, that would
> allow users to have several Guix variants available in parallel
> instead of just “latest”. Could work like this:
>
> guix channel add latest git://git.sv.gnu.o
17 matches
Mail list logo
