Disabling http tests for guix

[Thomas Mader]

On Friday, 16 February 2018 at 06:13:05 UTC, Pjotr Prins wrote:
> That is an interesting approach and I will discuss it with 
> others. So an output derivation is an output that gets 
> generated and allows for running it after the installation 
> phase - giving it an opportunity to run tests. It is an 
> interesting approach and works because the store is 'immutable'.
>
> Two downsides: (1) is you can not assume there is a network on 
> the build machine. We need to be able to build and test 
> packages in isolation on restricted computers to make sure no 
> one can tamper.

As Kagamin already noted, Phobos isn't running any network tests 
but dub is in it's tests.
But I don't see that as a problem. You always depend on the 
network for all package builds because you need to get the source 
from somewhere.
If you want to be able to build without Internet access you need 
to have it cached somewhere. Either on your machine or on a 
proxy. That's how it works. Is that different with guix?

> (2) it allows pulling software, as you state, which changes the 
> state of test system and makes it potentially non-reproducible. 
> I don't think the Guix folks thing that this is the way 
> forward. Impurity is a big no.

As you already stated a fixed output derivation isn't changing 
the derivation which uses it because the output is the same all 
the time. What happens inside the derivation is of no concern to 
the using derivation as long as it runs through.

>> guix sure has something equal because it basically is the same 
>> system. They even use parts of Nix.
>
> Currently Nix and Guix share the build daemon. Otherwise Nix 
> and Guix are different animals altogether. I moved from Nix to 
> Guix a few years back and know both systems intimately.

I decided to go with Nix because the community seems bigger and 
it was the project with the initial idea for such a system.
I don't see me moving but would still be interested in your 
reasons.

> here is mine (almost done, I need to remove some lines):
>
>     
> https://gitlab.com/genenetwork/guix/blob/dlang/gnu/packages/ldc.scm#L183
>
> to me the difference is that (if you think away the LISP 
> braces) Guix looks a lot more readable and the logic is clear 
> from the expression (some of it is probably a matter of taste). 
> I also note that the Nix package does not to build shared 
> phobos libs and is not running all ldc tests.
>
> But, admittedly, both package descriptions are short and clear.

Sorry I can't see that. :-)
I knew that guix comes with it's own language and if I remember 
correct I read somewhere that the Nix project lead is not against 
something like that for Nix too but I am not sure if it is 
currently an active topic. But I don't think it is.
I don't care, for me it would be more important to have such a 
system for Windows too to be able to have one package manager for 
the major three OSes.

Does guix come with a nice command line interface? Nix used to 
have multiple commands but with Nix 2.0 all is unified via 'nix 
<subcommand>'.