3 ms·
The problem is that _every_ _single_ _program_ has to have its configuration files rewritten to take nix or guix into account, and every sysadmin has to know ho
by greenhouse_gas 9y ago
The problem is that _every_ _single_ _program_ has to have its configuration files rewritten to take nix or guix into account, and every sysadmin has to know how to use the new nix or guix way.
- nextos 9y agoI don't think this is the case. I've packaged several things for Guix, and patches are rare. Stuff that has good configuration (e.g. uses GNU make, and thus accepts --prefix) will be fine.
- greenhouse_gas 9y agoWait, I thought that guix (like nix) keep their full configuration in flat nix or lisp files (like https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/manual/html_node/Using-the-Configuration-System.html https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/manual/html_node/Using-the... )? I never really tried guix, but that's how nix works ( https://nixos.org/nixos/manual/index.html https://nixos.org/nixos/manual/index.html ). So how does Apache configuration on upstream (meaning, how it's configured on Windows/Linux/FreeBSD) correlate to how it's configured on nixos/guix?
- nextos 9y agoIt depends. You can install it with nix/guix and configure it as in any other Linux distro. Or, if it's a service you want to make the configuration totally reproducible, you can use https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/manual/html_node/Services.html https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/manual/html_node/Services.... interfaces for those packages that have some written for them. But there's nothing wrong with regular dotfiles.