| 1 |
Hi Ethan, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Thank you for introducing nix. It will be interesting to compare the |
| 4 |
Microsoft windows registry with the centralized . nix configuration file. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Making Gentoo build reproducible and free of side-effects is a great |
| 7 |
feature to have. Because it makes bug solving much easier. There is a |
| 8 |
demand for it. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
The functional property of nix comes at the cost of violating Filesystem |
| 11 |
Hierarchy Standard (FHS). If you come up with an atomic solution while |
| 12 |
respecting FHS, it will be a big leap forward. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Yours, |
| 15 |
Benda |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
2018/02/23 午後8:59 "Ethan Kiang" <chocopuff298@×××××.com>: |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Hi! |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I'm here with an update. I've went to check out more about nixOS, and how |
| 22 |
their .nix configuration ideas could be applied to Gentoo. What I found out |
| 23 |
was, one main advantage/selling point of nixOS is that it is takes a |
| 24 |
functional approach to package/system management, resulting in no |
| 25 |
side-effects (only have limited FP experience so sorry if that isn't |
| 26 |
accurate description). I think we can use some of these ideas in the |
| 27 |
creation of a configuration distribution system. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
A few things to keep in mind however. Nix was built from the ground up to |
| 31 |
be functional. Gentoo prides itself in being a meta-distribution, so I |
| 32 |
think maybe it is possible to implement a functional configuration approach |
| 33 |
too as a choice. However, this might be a big undertaking, requiring |
| 34 |
perhaps major edits of portage or another pkg manager, which is maybe too |
| 35 |
ambitious for the scope of GSoC. Also, maybe there isn't demand for |
| 36 |
functional configuration on Gentoo. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Best, |
| 39 |
Ethan |
Archives