- cross-posted to:
- linux@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- linux@programming.dev
One aspect of Guix I found to be really fascinating: That there is basically no conceptual difference between defining a package as a private build script, and using a package as part of the system.
Let me explain: Say you wrote a little program in Python which uses a C library (or a Rust library with C ABI) which is in the distribution. Then, in Guix you would put that librarie’s name and needed version into a manifest.scm
file which lists your dependency, and makes it available if you run guix shell
in that folder. It does not matter whether you run the full Guix System, or just use Guix as s package manager.
Now, if you want to install your little python program as part of your system, you’ll write an install script or package definition, which is nothing else than a litle piece of Scheme code which contains the name of your program, your dependency, and the information needed to call python’s build tool.
The point I am making is now that the only thing which is different between your local package and a distributed package in Guix is that distributed packages are package definitions hosted in public git repos, called ‘channels’. So, if you put your package’s source into a github or codeberg repo, and the package definition into another repo, you now have published a package which is a part of Guix (in your own channel). Anybody who wants to install and run your package just needs your channel’s URL and the packages name. It is a fully decentral system.
In short, in Guix you have built-in something like Arch’s AUR, just in a much more elegant and clean manner - and in a fully decentralized way.
Scheme is a minimalistic Lisp dialect, and macros are central in Lisp. For example, they allow for both conditional evaluation (“if” is a macro, or more precisely, a “special form” that is used in other conditionals), and for delayed evaluation at run time, which matches a bit Nix being lazy.
Also, Scheme is designed as a not strictly but mostly functional language, favouring side-effect free functions, which matches well with the declarative task which is package definitions.
bash, in contrary, is not side-effect-free, it modifies its environment, and this is very much not desired in a functional package manager: it is at the core that package declarations are side-effect-free.
And Emacs shows that Lisp written in a declarative style is a superb configuration language. (There is now even a project to use a Scheme, Steel Scheme, to configure helix, a programmers text editor which has many many features stemming from vim!).