On Jul 10, 2010, at 10:01 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hello, > >> >> Yeah, as if any existing distro ever managed to introduce any significant >> changes. >
(aside) Yes that _IS_ a huge problem with distros and packaging. It's way too easy to argue that the cost of changing anything far outweighs benefits of innovation. > Well, there’s Mancoosi, a European project which, among other things, > intends to retrofit transactional upgrades and rollback in an existing > distro (Debian IIRC): > > http://www.mancoosi.org/ > > I’m skeptical about the feasibility of such a thing, though. > Not to honk my own warez or anything, but RPM has had --rollback for most of this century and --rollback has been deployed in a "production" CGL for many years now. WORKSFORME. If you ever receive a SMS from Brazil, you've likely traversed the RPM software. And the CGL with --rollback is deployed in far more countries than Brazil. More than that I cannot say because of a NDA muzzle. But I'd like to hear the details of your --rollback skepticism no matter what. I personally am conflicted about whether --rollback is useful for software distribution. The killer design issue is scripting with --rollback. Its extremely hard to permit general scripting side-effects whose effects can ALWAYS be reversed by --rollback. > And then there are other Nix/NixOS features that would still be lacking, > such as the power of purely functional builds and deployments that we’ve > got used to. > Which is largely why I'm here shopping a better mousetrap with NixOS that has some chance of eliminating ALL scripting side-effects in a "functional packaging" paradigm. 73 de Jeff_______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.cs.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
