6 ms·

Debian's dpkg and apt are both GPL2+. What's the reason they are reinventing the wheel here? Is there some kind of licence incompatibility that the GNU project

by rlpb 14y ago

Debian's dpkg and apt are both GPL2+. What's the reason they are reinventing the wheel here? Is there some kind of licence incompatibility that the GNU project cares about? Is there some kind of major architectural difference? Why is it important enough to fragment Free Software developers over? I feel that this should be answered in an FAQ, but I can't find the answer anywhere.

zoul 14y ago
From the e-mail: In addition to standard package management features, Guix supports transactional upgrades and roll-backs, unprivileged package management, per-user profiles, and garbage collection Maybe that’s enough? (I don’t understand package managers.)
- danieldk 14y ago
  Then, why reinvent the obvious other wheel? http://nixos.org/nix/ http://nixos.org/nix/
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - dbaupp 14y ago
    It's not a reinvention, it's a fork: "Guix is based on the Nix package manager." [https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/guix/ https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/guix/] (More info here: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2012-07/msg00006.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2012-07/msg000..., taken from icebraining below)
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - jmtd 14y ago
      I'm not sure it's even a fork. It appears to plug a different backend/frontend into the nix structure, so it appears to be a "patch", for want of a better word. (at least that's what I gleaned from http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/software/guile/guix-ghm-2012.20120721.pdf http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/software/guile/guix-ghm-2012.201...)
  - madjar 14y ago
    According to the site of the project, "Guix is based on the Nix package manager."
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
benihana 14y ago
Usually when there is no clear answer to this in a FOSS project, I think it's safe to assume the answer is ego.
- __david__ 14y ago
  While you're not necessarily wrong, "ego" gives off a pretty negative vibe. I would say it's quite often personal dissatisfaction of the status quo. I support what they are doing. Wheels sometimes get better when they are reinvented.
  - mseebach 14y ago
    I'm not one to declare other people's motivation, but it strikes me as very odd that there isn't a "So, here's what's irreparably wrong with dpkg/apt and rpm/yum".
    - zem 14y ago
      it's fixing a (real or perceived) problem with nix, not with dpkg or rpm.
      - mseebach 14y ago
        Well, there isn't a "So, here's what's wrong with nix" either.
        zem 14y ago
        there kind of is, if you read between the lines - their usp is the scheme interface, which provides a "proper" programming language with which to interact with the packaging system. they don't explicitly call that out as something wrong with nix, but it's clearly what they feel they do better.
- rhizome 14y ago
  What relation would you say ego has to scratching one's own itch?
MatthewPhillips 14y ago
Those things are never going to be adopted by Fedora, Arch, Gentoo, or any other non-Debian based distro. That is reason enough not to use it.
- rjbond3rd 14y ago
  Why? Because you predict it won't meet your definition of popularity? Once upon a time, Arch and Gentoo were dismissed in exactly this way.
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    Arch and Gentoo are still tiny fractions of the linux install base (which is itself a tiny fraction of users), and are mostly irrelevant.
    - rjbond3rd 14y ago
      Irrelevant for what, to whom? Everything is a tiny fraction of something -- are you saying that value is purely a function of popularity?
    - freshhawk 14y ago
      Unless you feel that those that write software have more influence in the direction of the community than those who just apt-get/yum install it. Then they are a small fraction of users but are not irrelevant.
- perssontm 14y ago
  Perhaps it doesnt matter, if this provides a large enough software base, then fedora, arch, gentoo etc would perhaps just write a guix->(dpkg|rpm|...) converter to keep their distribution up to date. Not sure if it would be possible but moving work upstream where more detailed and in-depth knowledge is available might be a good thing.
- rokgarbas 14y ago
  with guix/nix you don't even care if they get adopted or not. you can use it in coexistence with any package manager. very common scenario i come across few times a year: you get to work on an old CentOS/RedHat/Fedora box but you need to install latest package X which is only in next version of current distro. which would mean you need to upgrade or do a lot of manual work. with guix/nix you just install it without need to upgrade.
drcube 14y ago
My guess is so they can make it very easy to install only free software.
- pjscott 14y ago
  This system works just as well for free software as for non-free. Downloading a binary blob from somewhere would be easy, just a few lines of code in the package description file.
antidoh 14y ago
"What's the reason they are reinventing the wheel here?" Maybe they'd eventually like to stop having to say Gnu/Linux.
- JoeAcchino 14y ago
  As long as they use the Linux kernel they don't have much other naming choiches.
  - antidoh 14y ago
    Until they have their own gkernel.
    - mkup 14y ago
      GNU Hurd?
      - antidoh 14y ago
        Ah, I was unnecessarily flippant; stopped paying much attention to it in the 90s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd#GNU_distributions_running_Hurd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd#GNU_distributions_run... So what would be a compelling technical or business reason to use this, either now or when they get to wherever they're going? I suppose it would be great for study.
        derleth 14y ago
        > I suppose it would be great for study. Does anyone still care that much about microkernels, which were the standard design for state-of-the-art OSes back in the 1980s? Seems like research now is focused on VMs, which do have a current business use, just like they have for decades now. The Hurd is, at least from the outside, a 1980s design that failed to catch on in the 1980s and is now a solution looking for a problem. At least the userspace intended to go with the Hurd proved to be high-quality and very widely usable.
caf 14y ago
The "unprivileged package management" is the important feature here from the GNU point of view. One of the philosophical underpinnings of the GNU project is empowering non-superusers as far as possible - that's why they've stuck with the microkernel design, too. The idea there is that non-superusers would be able to easily run their own filesystem or TCP stack, for example, since it's just a matter of running their own daemon. Once you understand this, a lot of GNU's technical decisions make more sense.

by rlpb 14y ago

zoul 14y ago

From the e-mail: In addition to standard package management features, Guix supports transactional upgrades and roll-backs, unprivileged package management, per-user profiles, and garbage collection Maybe that’s enough? (I don’t understand package managers.)

danieldk 14y ago
Then, why reinvent the obvious other wheel? http://nixos.org/nix/ http://nixos.org/nix/
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- dbaupp 14y ago
  It's not a reinvention, it's a fork: "Guix is based on the Nix package manager." [https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/guix/ https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/guix/] (More info here: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2012-07/msg00006.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2012-07/msg000..., taken from icebraining below)
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - jmtd 14y ago
    I'm not sure it's even a fork. It appears to plug a different backend/frontend into the nix structure, so it appears to be a "patch", for want of a better word. (at least that's what I gleaned from http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/software/guile/guix-ghm-2012.20120721.pdf http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/software/guile/guix-ghm-2012.201...)
- madjar 14y ago
  According to the site of the project, "Guix is based on the Nix package manager."

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

benihana 14y ago

Usually when there is no clear answer to this in a FOSS project, I think it's safe to assume the answer is ego.

__david__ 14y ago
While you're not necessarily wrong, "ego" gives off a pretty negative vibe. I would say it's quite often personal dissatisfaction of the status quo. I support what they are doing. Wheels sometimes get better when they are reinvented.
- mseebach 14y ago
  I'm not one to declare other people's motivation, but it strikes me as very odd that there isn't a "So, here's what's irreparably wrong with dpkg/apt and rpm/yum".
  - zem 14y ago
    it's fixing a (real or perceived) problem with nix, not with dpkg or rpm.
    - mseebach 14y ago
      Well, there isn't a "So, here's what's wrong with nix" either.
      - zem 14y ago
        there kind of is, if you read between the lines - their usp is the scheme interface, which provides a "proper" programming language with which to interact with the packaging system. they don't explicitly call that out as something wrong with nix, but it's clearly what they feel they do better.
rhizome 14y ago
What relation would you say ego has to scratching one's own itch?

MatthewPhillips 14y ago

Those things are never going to be adopted by Fedora, Arch, Gentoo, or any other non-Debian based distro. That is reason enough not to use it.

rjbond3rd 14y ago
Why? Because you predict it won't meet your definition of popularity? Once upon a time, Arch and Gentoo were dismissed in exactly this way.
- Karunamon 14y ago
  Arch and Gentoo are still tiny fractions of the linux install base (which is itself a tiny fraction of users), and are mostly irrelevant.
  - rjbond3rd 14y ago
    Irrelevant for what, to whom? Everything is a tiny fraction of something -- are you saying that value is purely a function of popularity?
  - freshhawk 14y ago
    Unless you feel that those that write software have more influence in the direction of the community than those who just apt-get/yum install it. Then they are a small fraction of users but are not irrelevant.
perssontm 14y ago
Perhaps it doesnt matter, if this provides a large enough software base, then fedora, arch, gentoo etc would perhaps just write a guix->(dpkg|rpm|...) converter to keep their distribution up to date. Not sure if it would be possible but moving work upstream where more detailed and in-depth knowledge is available might be a good thing.
rokgarbas 14y ago
with guix/nix you don't even care if they get adopted or not. you can use it in coexistence with any package manager. very common scenario i come across few times a year: you get to work on an old CentOS/RedHat/Fedora box but you need to install latest package X which is only in next version of current distro. which would mean you need to upgrade or do a lot of manual work. with guix/nix you just install it without need to upgrade.

drcube 14y ago

My guess is so they can make it very easy to install only free software.

pjscott 14y ago
This system works just as well for free software as for non-free. Downloading a binary blob from somewhere would be easy, just a few lines of code in the package description file.

antidoh 14y ago

"What's the reason they are reinventing the wheel here?" Maybe they'd eventually like to stop having to say Gnu/Linux.

JoeAcchino 14y ago
As long as they use the Linux kernel they don't have much other naming choiches.
- antidoh 14y ago
  Until they have their own gkernel.
  - mkup 14y ago
    GNU Hurd?
    - antidoh 14y ago
      Ah, I was unnecessarily flippant; stopped paying much attention to it in the 90s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd#GNU_distributions_running_Hurd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd#GNU_distributions_run... So what would be a compelling technical or business reason to use this, either now or when they get to wherever they're going? I suppose it would be great for study.
      - derleth 14y ago
        > I suppose it would be great for study. Does anyone still care that much about microkernels, which were the standard design for state-of-the-art OSes back in the 1980s? Seems like research now is focused on VMs, which do have a current business use, just like they have for decades now. The Hurd is, at least from the outside, a 1980s design that failed to catch on in the 1980s and is now a solution looking for a problem. At least the userspace intended to go with the Hurd proved to be high-quality and very widely usable.

caf 14y ago

The "unprivileged package management" is the important feature here from the GNU point of view. One of the philosophical underpinnings of the GNU project is empowering non-superusers as far as possible - that's why they've stuck with the microkernel design, too. The idea there is that non-superusers would be able to easily run their own filesystem or TCP stack, for example, since it's just a matter of running their own daemon. Once you understand this, a lot of GNU's technical decisions make more sense.