Re: guix home

[Julien Lepiller]

Le 15 mars 2021 12:51:16 GMT-04:00, "Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org> a écrit :
>Hi Andrew,
>
>Andrew Tropin <andrew@trop.in> skribis:
>>
>> The question is: do we want and need at all `guix home` to be a part
>of
>> the guix? As for me, the tool seems like a natural addition to guix's
>> declarative configuration management approach and covers the missing
>> piece of user space software management and as I mentioned early
>> upstreaming will allow to make it better integrated with the rest of
>the
>> guix and easier to use for newcommers and casual users, but my
>> perception is obviously biased.
>>
>> Dear maintainers and users, what do you think about making `guix
>home` a
>> part of guix?
>
>I have yet to familiarize myself with ‘guix home’, but overall, I think
>a solution à la ‘guix home’ or guix-home-manager would be a welcome
>addition to Guix.
>
>I agree that these tools are a natural extension of Guix and that it
>makes sense to settle on one approach and make it part of Guix proper.

Obviously I'm not a big fan of having configuration that can be modified after 
I ran guix home, but I understand this approach sounds less crazy :). I think 
both approaches have a lot more in common than they diverge, so merging one in 
guix is just one step away of merging the other :)

Having a read-only home is a fun experiment (that have been going since I 
started guix-home-manager, so it's definitely possible), but a bit broken, and 
I keep poking holes for software I can't manage properly.

Also, I had this grand vision of using "extension points" in services, which 
might be useful to have in Guix. Though I never ended up using them in any 
meaningful way ^^'.

Merging either of our work will make it more visible and attract more 
users/contributors, that would be great! If we settle with Andrew's approach, 
I'd be glad to provide my own services, but I will also probably add something 
to get back my dear read-only home, because that's the intellectually superior 
approach, albeit broken ;)

>
>Thanks!
>
>Ludo’.