| > It seems you share the same attitude that changes cannot be done - not because you are certain that is the case, but because you don't believe it should be. There is no reason behind this attitude, and I frankly have no patience for it. I don't share this attitude in any objective sense. Changes can always be done. Whether they should is a pros-vs-cons consideration, many of which are subjective, and both conclusions are therefore valid. I wasn't arguing that this should not be done, I was challenging the perspective that this should be expected. There's a difference between saying devs should follow the status quo, and asking devs to consider extending the scope of their project and adopt a new approach. And calling devs "elitist" for refusing to do the latter seems pretty rich. As has been mentioned, Portage already does this, and it's a much older, more traditional package manager without the concept of setting up environments, so noone is questioning that this can be done. > Please do not naively tell me that my perspective doesn't exist, or cannot make sense. If your perspective is that it would be nice for Nix to support arbitrary package, that's great. If your perspective is that any dev who refuses to implement such a non-normative and complexity-increasing feature is elitist, then I don't believe your perspective makes sense. Minor note: I do actually agree with zapita's original comment, so this lengthy thread underneath may seem like pedantry, but I just found it odd that you felt your example fit with zapita's point, as it seemed like the opposite to me. |