Josselin Poiret <d...@jpoiret.xyz> writes: >> 2: https://nlnet.nl/project/GuixDaemon-Guile/ >> >> Rewrites are risky because you only get the value right at the end, >> therefore the priority is to get a minimal but viable implementation in >> Guile that can be switched to, and not to get distracted on adding or >> improving functionality unnecessarily. That is better done once the new >> implementation has been adopted. >> >> While I think there's a substantial amount of work to do, progress >> towards a Guile guix-daemon has already been made. There was a least one >> GSoC project which did make progress, and there's Guile implementations >> of some of the functionality in Guix already. >> >> Still though, I'd like to hear what people think about which direction >> the implementation should go, and what features they'd like to see. Even >> if those are not essential to make the Guile implementation viable, it >> still might inform the direction to take. > > I think the #1 feature for me would be to have it completely > unpriviledged using mount namespaces, so that you could still build > software without needing to run the daemon on the system. You won't be > able to run the built software without using namespaces as well though, > but that still a step in the right direction imo. > > WDYT?
Thanks for the suggestion :) I'm not quite sure what this would involve, but it sounds like it might not be that hard to do.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
