Re: Adoption of Nix?
2008/12/24 Eugene V. Lyubimkin <email@example.com>:
>> 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
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.