Yes my previous is mainly with FreeBSD. Your response highlights my
mistake. As a Guix noob (but with decades of apt/yum/rpm/pkg kinda
experience) I misunderstood how these things interact, and failing to
manage Guix was most definitely my fault.
Don't get me wrong, I love Guix and the philosophy, but my heart cries
out for some Grand Unified Manager of Packages (GUMP), something that
can track whether things need building from source, or can be brought
in as binary from an apt or rpm, or build those packages as
intermediate stages. I kinda thought that's what Guix was going to
do. Now I see that a unified package manager is probably unreasonable
and that we are headed more toward containerised "Snap/flatpck" way of
things - which I don't like.
> something that can track whether things need building from source, or can be brought in as binary from an apt or rpm, or build those packages as intermediate stages. I kinda thought that's what Guix was going to do.
I mean, that sortof what nix (and I assume guix) is though, right? As long as your ok with the binary cache for a replacement for apt/rpm (with the caveat that sometimes pkgs can be built on .deb or .rpm)
Don't get me wrong, I love Guix and the philosophy, but my heart cries out for some Grand Unified Manager of Packages (GUMP), something that can track whether things need building from source, or can be brought in as binary from an apt or rpm, or build those packages as intermediate stages. I kinda thought that's what Guix was going to do. Now I see that a unified package manager is probably unreasonable and that we are headed more toward containerised "Snap/flatpck" way of things - which I don't like.