1. 30

  2. 4

    This is exactly what I’d like for my projects. I don’t want or need full blown containers or perfect reproducibility, just a more structured way of describing dependencies (for polyglot projects, i.e. that doesn’t require tying myself to one language’s package manager). If it supported macOS I would definitely try it.

    1. 5

      Nix (the package manager) supports macOS which works similarily. It doesn’t look like guix does though.

      1. 2

        Yeah it sounds like Nix on macOS has gotten better. I remember at one time people were disabling SIP in order to create the /nix directory? But judging from how long the uninstall instructions are, it’s still not convenient to try it out without really committing. Not just for me, but for others who might use/contribute to my projects. I can see people thinking “Oh I’d have to install nix, never mind.”

      2. 2

        I wish Guix for macOS existed as well… The design and structure of Guix seems better than Nix’s. I like the simplicity of the Scheme-based package definitions (as opposed to Nix’s custom language).

        There was some discussion of the idea on the Guix development list in 2017, but it seemed to quickly spiral into wacky virtualisation approaches as way of avoiding non-free software…

        I would personally want to have a “native” Guix without virtualisation on macOS, but impression is the Guix core team aren’t that interested, and it would be quite a lot of work for a new group to assemble such a thing, so at the moment it feels unlikely.

      3. 2

        You can also use a manifest that pulls in the package development env to add extra tools (like linters) useful for development but not needed for the guix package.