Re: Adoption of Nix?
2008/12/24 Artyom Shalkhakov <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>> Well, as I see, it uses it's own package format, which is
>> wrapper-description around everything - source, deb or rpm. Does it
>> really have any sense?
> "Every problem in computer science can be solved by adding
> a layer of indirection", as the saying goes.
Yep, and the next year we'll introduce new level of abstraction - for
different versions of nix package format. Pluralitas non est ponenda
sine necessitate, said Occam, as I remember.
>> We have our deb and src packages, do we really need any
>> wrappers, that make us possible to install rpms? For what
>> Surely, dpkg always allows you to rollback any installed
>> packages. You just sometimes have to rollback half of all your
>> packages - in accordance with dependencies.
>> I've just looked to the structure of that package format - it also
>> requires to write dependencies - so what in it deals with 'em better?
>> I really don't understand.
> The difference is *purity*, which means that Nix expressions
> are *deterministic*. And that's what really makes them better.
I see nothing "purer" in them. Show the difference, please.
>> Can it work with sections like "Recommends" or "Suggests"?
> I don't know this yet, but I think it's nearly trivial to add.
But it's not still added, really?
And how about packaging many binary packages from the one source?
> PS do you work for Nigma, an "intelligent search engine"?
Yes, I'm developer there. :)