***civodul changes topic to 'GNU Guix | http://gnu.org/s/guix/ | channel log: https://gnunet.org/bot/log/guix | things to package: http://libreplanet.org/wiki/Group:Guix/Wishlist | GNU Guix 0.8 is out!'
<gp5st>hello. I'm not 100% sure what I'm asking, but does guix have namespacing built in. e.g. in apt, all the php modules are prefixed php5-; I was curious if this was a concept built into guix or if it uses a flat namespace for packages
<davexunit>gp5st: we typically use the upstream name of the software as the package name. though you'll see what we use prefixes for python libs, for instance.
<_`_>The dichotomy between a “system package/package management” and a “language package/package management” is a bit exaggerated. The “system package manager” could make use of a “language's package manager” to install the software as a “system package”. And that's far from the only approach to that problem.
<davexunit>a lot of folks are skeptical and anti-GNU. no surprise.
<taylanub>civodul: I meant it in the sense that we can't trust non-GNU projects to fill central roles in GNU, so sometimes GNU has to make its own version of something... isn't that true?
<civodul>it's sounds quite theoritical, but it could be
<civodul>i was mostly surprised of Guix being depicted as "NIH"
<civodul>i thought the ethical and technical reasons were clearer
<civodul>probably that suggests that we've been miscommunicating ;-)
<jxself>Huh, taylanub? Non-gnu packages exist. Linux-libre and IceCat are examples of things being brought in.
<jxself>And are official GNU packages. The kernel's kinda important. :)
<taylanub>being official GNU packages is what I mean.
<jxself>Yeah, those are both official GNU packages.
<civodul>BTW, i spent 4 years hacking on Nix and 2 years hacking on Guix
<taylanub>civodul: as much as I like Scheme, I can't blame someone when they disapprove of forking/remaking something merely to do it in a different programming language. (then again, when it's Perl/C++ v. Scheme, that might actually be technically justified :P) re. the ethics, that's actually exactly what I mean: non-GNU projects can't be trusted to uphold the ideals in the long term (even if they're GPL
<taylanub>licensed for the time being), so GNU somehow has to make its own version... i.e. when I say "NIH is a problem for GNU" I don't mean it as in "it's a problem that GNU remakes things due to NIH," I mean it as in "things not being invented(*) at GNU is sadly an actual problem for GNU, i.e. NIH actually applies to GNU as a valid reason to remake something" (*) invent is of course the wrong term; "be