-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.5k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Build daemon without rest of Nix #6182
Comments
IMHO this is fairly low-priority and shouldn't be done if it causes a lot of code churn, since the value of a minimal daemon isn't entirely obvious. (All that libexpr code doesn't actually get used by the daemon, so it shouldn't cause any problems.) We're also moving in the direction of providing Nix as a single binary, and this goes against that. |
Well, I did expect this wasn't as uncontroversial as you said it was :). For me, Nix's frontend has dramatically increased in scope as of late, and this makes me eager to carve out a more stable scope level "thin waist". I know many people interested in using Nix without the nix expression language, and I also hope this would allow us to work with Guix to standardize a common drv layer. (They weren't so thrilled on the idea before, granted.) Such a common effort is, I think, a crucial step to getting Nix more commonplace in data centers of all stripes. So to me, it will take churn, but it is entirely worth it. I guess I will return to the RFC at some point, |
Last thing before I let this lie dormant:
So really, I would love to have libfetchers-less/libexpr-less versions of We could have a I think I could this without duplicated code, but yes with lot's of churn. |
From NixOS/rfcs#68 (comment)
OK opening this. For me the requirements are this:
libexpr
libfetchers
nix-daemon
and legacynix-daemon
It seems like then we would have to make
libcmd
andlibmain
not depend onlibexpr
. Interesting!The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: