Simon Tournier

https://social.sciences.re/@zimoun

Reproducible Research and Guix

« Le vrai pessimiste sait qu'il est déjà trop tard pour l'être. »

Web: https://simon.tournier.info
Blog: https://simon.tournier.info/posts

Public Key

npub1epyahyq7kewv4d5g75ju90k24vauuhxw8h4pvay39uptum9uw55sl2hv3y

NIP-05 Address

zimoun_at_social.sciences.re@momostr.pink

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsvsjwmjq0tvhx2k6y02fwzhm92kw7wtn8rm6skwjgj7q47dj7822gpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dsv7z03g

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub1epyahyq7kewv4d5g75ju90k24vauuhxw8h4pvay39uptum9uw55sl2hv3y

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-09-24 18:03:02 UTC

Hi @npub124t…2ca5
« Package Managers à la Carte – A Formal Model of Dependency Resolution »
https://doi.org/10.1145/3828699
Cool, very nice and great paper! Well, to be honest, I’m not able to parse all in this paper; it’ll deserve a huge mug of coffee and some free time ahead. So maybe my question is already answered. 😁
🤔 What I’m missing is the definition of “package” and “version”.
2.1.1 « A package is a unit of software – source code, a compiled binary, or data – […] Packages are identified by a name, which refers to a package across its releases, and a version, distinguishing one release from another. »
The exact same source code – the exact same “name” and “version” – can produce two different compiled binaries depending on the compilation options for instance.
What seems lacking in this “Package Calculus“ is thus a third item defining a "package”: the “build script“, no?
Either it’s included in the “version” but the ordering seems lost, either the “Package Calculus“ would need to be updated, no?
Appendix D “Singular Dependencies” speaks about Nix/Guix. And from my understanding, that’s the point of this approach: define a “package” as a “name”, a “version” (= source code release) and a “build script”, no?