Hi, I haven’t read this thread and I don’t really care to read all of it. I’ve always intended to get back into the Nix community after the issues with community management are sorted to my satisfaction. If jonrigner gets his commit bit back, I’m gonna be gone for good. Create whatever future you want to live in. Be well, Xe EDIT: Looks like his commit bit got back anyways. I hope you all enjoy the future you have created. So long, and thanks for all the fish.
They invited that guy back. I do have to admit, I admire his inability to read a room.
For this reason, Tvix (a modular Nix implementation) cites compatibility with nixpkgs as one of their goals:
The package collection is an enormous effort with hundreds of thousands of commits, encoding expert knowledge about lots of different software and ways of building and managing it. It is a very valuable piece of software and we must be able to reuse it.
Yup, there are a few efforts out there like that, I would group aux and lix in with them, as ecosystem-compatible parts.
My feeling these days is that the ecosystem is kinda screwy on a fundamental level, and I’m willing to blame the unhealthy focus on “purity” (both the word and the concept) for a good part of that. The language you use to define packages and systems doesn’t need to be lazily evaluated and purely functional; nothing needs to be, that is a lesson freely available to be learned coming out of the early 2000s.
Anyway, here I am slowly reading through the doctoral thesis, picking out the (several) grains of corn that make up the really good and solid ideas that make it a useful system; maybe a thing can be made that adds a bit of pragmatism… and then a lot of effort can be poured into that, unpragmatically.
For this reason, Tvix (a modular Nix implementation) cites compatibility with nixpkgs as one of their goals:
https://tvl.fyi/blog/rewriting-nix
Yup, there are a few efforts out there like that, I would group aux and lix in with them, as ecosystem-compatible parts.
My feeling these days is that the ecosystem is kinda screwy on a fundamental level, and I’m willing to blame the unhealthy focus on “purity” (both the word and the concept) for a good part of that. The language you use to define packages and systems doesn’t need to be lazily evaluated and purely functional; nothing needs to be, that is a lesson freely available to be learned coming out of the early 2000s.
Anyway, here I am slowly reading through the doctoral thesis, picking out the (several) grains of corn that make up the really good and solid ideas that make it a useful system; maybe a thing can be made that adds a bit of pragmatism… and then a lot of effort can be poured into that, unpragmatically.