<efraim>I'm pretty sure that's the use case for it but I've been hesitant to go and tag them
<PurpleSym1>civodul: I have to go in a few minutes, but we can have a look at the CRAN blog post later today.
<PurpleSym1>Completely unrelated, but I’ve also been looking into how to get Guix into Windows’ WSL2 as a proper distribution (like Ubuntu). There is a template project here: https://github.com/Microsoft/WSL-DistroLauncher which could easily be adjusted to Guix. There is no obvious way to build it on Linux, so someone would have to build it on Windows. And then do the app-store dance to publish it.
<PurpleSym1>Not sure if that’s something the Guix maintainers would be willing to support.
<PurpleSym1>But given that alot of people run Windows that would be a good way to “introduce” Guix.
<civodul>PurpleSym1: re the blog post, sounds good!
<civodul>re WSL2, we'd have to ask the maintainers, but i think having an official WSL2 image would be reasonable
<PurpleSym1>civodul: Alright, I see the point now why you referenced that Nature article. Shouldn’t we highlight GWL instead? Guix itself only solves the dependency problem. You can still hard-code paths and end up with the same mess.
<PurpleSym1>Wrt R version guesswork: Absolutely, that’s something Guix will solve.
<civodul>PurpleSym1: so the "source cleanup" is about absolute file names, and yes, this is more GWL's area