3 ms·
Exactly. What's more, if we're talking about user hostility, how hostile is when a software doesn't provide a configurable install dir? It's literally a single
by tomp 6y ago
Exactly. What's more, if we're talking about user hostility, how hostile is when a software doesn't provide a configurable install dir? It's literally a single damn variable!!
- roguas 6y agoThis is not the case. The problem is that caching is based on the default path which is /nix. So they would have to rebuild all caches.
- packetlost 6y agoMaybe they shouldn't have built it that way then. In my experience nix is nothing but a huge pain in the ass if you don't buy fully into the system, weird design decisions and all
- soraminazuki 6y ago> doesn't provide a configurable install dir This is completely false. You can change the installation directory at the cost of losing binary packages. When you change it, packages would be built from source instead. This is what Homebrew does too. What's more, I don't think many package managers provide this option. Not apt, not yum.
- saagarjha 6y agoHomebrew itself recommends you not do this, and while it is getting better at working in this case you will still run into issues if you try to do certain things.
- hartzell 6y ago[Spack](https://spack.io https://spack.io) uses patchelf and additional tooling to relocate it's binary packages to other paths. It generally works, although one has to special case things that burn their install directory into their builds (e.g. Perl).
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- rcxdude 6y agoit's a single variable which many parts of the system need to have knowledge about, some parts which have basically no way to feed in a variable. You can change the root directory in nix, but that invalidates all binary packages, in part because rpath is not at all configurable.