3 ms·
> what prevents someone from making a shell script that installs your applications and dotfiles The reproducibility of that would not be nearly as high. For e
by ParetoOptimal 3y ago
> what prevents someone from making a shell script that installs your applications and dotfiles
The reproducibility of that would not be nearly as high.
For example, if the source of those applications is apt the versions of packages would change over time.
- mksybr 3y agoyes, i am fine with that personally and its hard for me to grok what benefits reproducibility in the guix sense would get me here
- rgoulter 3y agoOne example was "I want to run an old version of Hugo". In the time since running the old version of hugo, enough about the system had changed: - The OS had changed significantly (so re-running an old build didn't work). - The compiler had changed significantly (so compiling from source would have been difficult). https://jvns.ca/blog/2023/02/28/some-notes-on-using-nix/ https://jvns.ca/blog/2023/02/28/some-notes-on-using-nix/
- mksybr 3y agoGreat example! Managing old or multiple versions of software is actually a great usecase for Guix.
- ParetoOptimal 3y ago> i am fine with that personally and its hard for me to grok what benefits reproducibility in the guix sense would get me here I read this as: > i am fine with the lack of reproducibility of apt-update personally and its hard for me to grok what benefits reproducibility in the guix sense would get me here To which my answer is: Guix gets you the reproducibility benefit of not having the reproducibility harming apt-update. Does this help answer your question or confuse things more?