Sometimes life would be easier if software was identified by UUID rather than name.

@liw ... or just have the specific package identified by a SHA256 hash, last 8 characters for short, and then a DNS-like service to connect each hash to its human-readable name.

I'm sure there are reasons that won't work, but maybe there's a compromise approach.

@liw that's kind of like what GNU #Guix does... you work with store items where the filename contains a hash.

So if you run `guix build bash` you get:

@cbaines But you're still referring to the software by name: bash. That means your or Guix needs to handle name clashes, and that's what's bothering me.

@liw well, with packaging software for Guix, you try to refer to dependencies using those absolute filenames in the store.

Take iotop as an example, rather than referring to python by name, the script in Guix package starts:


Then when you run that specific build of iotop, you're always going to get the same python.

@cbaines Yes, I understand that Guix does that. It is entirely irrelevant to my concern, sorry.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Lars and friends