Re: ‘guix publish’ now compresses archives

[Tomáš Čech]

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 09:12:53AM -0400, Thompson, David wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Tomáš Čech <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > First, I'm not saying that we should do that for every archive, but I
> > think that having a way how to automatically export this information
> > would be great and I see it as a week point for using Guix packages as
> > alternative to Snappy or Flatpak.
>
> I don't really understand the point of this back-and-forth.  It's
> quite simple: If the user builds the same package expression with the
> same version of Guix, they will get the same result if the build is
> deterministic.

Yes.

> I don't understand the contrast with Snappy and Flatpak because they
> don't provide this feature at all, opting instead to provide opaque
> binaries with no real provenance.

Snappy and Flatpak does not provide this feature but Guix could.

> I can only assume that there is some fundamental misunderstanding
> about Guix going on here.

I don't think so. My guess is that you're using Guix too much as OS
and too little as package manager in another OS.

Nevermind, enough of this. It seems that noone is interested in that
anyway.

S_W

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature