[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: You say nix, I say guix: Nix 2.0 and Guix
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: You say nix, I say guix: Nix 2.0 and Guix |
Date: |
Sun, 29 Apr 2018 19:34:09 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux) |
Hello!
Chris Marusich <address@hidden> skribis:
> On February 22nd, Nix 2.0 was released:
>
> https://nixos.org/nix/manual/#ssec-relnotes-2.0
Very nice work. It looks like the CLI is closer to that of Guix now. :-)
> It contains a lot of interesting new features. Are there any plans to
> merge some of the nix-daemon changes into our guix-daemon?
Why not? What did you have in mind? One thing we discussed long ago
was the idea of keeping signatures in the store database, and I think
Nix 2.0 does that. That’s something we could borrow.
> Is compatibility with the nix-daemon a goal of the Guix project?
I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s not a worthy goal, as in, it would
cost more than it’s worth. guix-daemon is already incompatible with
nix-daemon on a few things, such as the “builtin:download” derivation
builder.
> Can we take inspiration from any of the non-daemon features and use
> them in Guix?
Definitely.
> Conversely, is there anything we can upstream to Nix that they might
> find useful?
Changes in the daemon are pretty much the only thing we could upstream,
and I used to do exactly that. At some point I decided to stop
following closely upstream and allow ourselves to change the daemon as
we see fit. As a result, you may find that not every change that we
make to our nix/ directory is directly applicable to current Nix.
I’m also hopeful that we can move to a Guile-based daemon in the future.
Overall, I think Nix and Guix still have a lot to share, probably not in
terms of code, but at least in terms of design, features, and ideas.
The discussions with Eelco at the Guix Workshop demonstrated that!
Ludo’.