[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Nix and non-standard-toplevel-dir

Luke Faraone wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 at 20:28, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
> > If anything, they probably already know
> > how Nix works and are expecting it to use those paths.  There doesn't seem
> > to be much drawback in this carefully-chosen lack of compliance with the
> > FHS.
> >
> > I don't think it's worth writing an explicit Policy exception for this,
> > since it's a single edge case.  Instead, I think it's a good use of a
> > Lintian override documenting what's going on.  Obviously, if Nix becomes
> > really popular in the long run, we can then go back and write this into
> > Policy.

> This also is the case with snapd, which uses `/snap` in all other
> distributions. We currently override it, but the issue was brought up
> in a bug report.[1] I think the same arguments apply to both Nix and
> snapd; but perhaps two is not yet numerous enough to warrant
> documenting in policy.

> [1]: http://bugs.debian.org/852199

How about three?

Guix is basically a re-implementation of Nix in scheme. I took a quick
stab at packaging it a while back...


So the same logic that would apply for /nix and /snap would also apply
to /gnu (Guix uses /gnu/store, like Nix's /nix/store).

live well,

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: