On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:19:59 -0400 Eelco Dolstra <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Well, let's not try to decide the undecidable. Would it be so bad to > > have explicit dependencies? > > One of Nix's main selling points is that you *don't* need to specify runtime > dependencies explicitly. That has worked great for the last ten years, so I'm > rather hesitant to change this. > > Of course, you can always make runtime dependencies explicit in the way you > describe, but it's important to be aware that packages that require this are > broken (e.g. they won't work with Nix's --repair flag and multiple output > support, because these use hash rewriting). We will probably have to find a solution sooner or later. Perhaps what we really need is the ability to give each package its own view of the Nix store. They should always find other packages where they would expect in their own virtualised environment. The Linux kernel has the necessary support to implement this securely. Greets, Ertugrul -- Ertugrul Söylemez <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
