GNU bug report logs -
#39505
Adding filesystem utilities based on file-systems
Previous Next
Reported by: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 00:32:01 UTC
Severity: normal
Done: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 39505 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 39505 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.
Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.
Report forwarded
to
bug-guix <at> gnu.org
:
bug#39505
; Package
guix
.
(Sat, 08 Feb 2020 00:32:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Acknowledgement sent
to
Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to
bug-guix <at> gnu.org
.
(Sat, 08 Feb 2020 00:32:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
As discussed in #39332 [0], it would be great if filesystem utility
packages were added to the system profile if a file-systems entry uses
that filesystem type.
For example, btrfs-progs could be added if a btrfs filesystem was listed
in file-systems.
[0]
https://issues.guix.info/issue/39332#3
Information forwarded
to
bug-guix <at> gnu.org
:
bug#39505
; Package
guix
.
(Mon, 10 Feb 2020 22:08:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #8 received at 39505 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Hi Leo,
Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name> skribis:
> As discussed in #39332 [0], it would be great if filesystem utility
> packages were added to the system profile if a file-systems entry uses
> that filesystem type.
>
> For example, btrfs-progs could be added if a btrfs filesystem was listed
> in file-systems.
This could be done with something like:
[Message part 2 (text/x-patch, inline)]
diff --git a/gnu/system.scm b/gnu/system.scm
index 01baa248a2..3ff3073017 100644
--- a/gnu/system.scm
+++ b/gnu/system.scm
@@ -203,7 +203,11 @@
(default %default-issue))
(packages operating-system-packages ; list of (PACKAGE OUTPUT...)
- (default %base-packages)) ; or just PACKAGE
+ (thunked) ; or just PACKAGE
+ (default (append (file-system-packages
+ (operating-system-file-systems
+ this-operating-system))
+ %base-packages)))
(timezone operating-system-timezone) ; string
(locale operating-system-locale ; string
[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]
However, this would only work for the default values of ‘packages’. In
other cases, users would have to add (file-system-packages …) explicitly
by themselves, which is not great.
Alternately, we could turn ‘%base-packages’ into a macro that expands
to something like:
(gimme-the-base-packages this-operating-system)
but that wouldn’t be great because now you’d be unable to refer to
‘%base-packages’ like a regular variable, outside the lexical context of
an ‘operating-system’ form.
Thoughts?
Ludo’.
Information forwarded
to
bug-guix <at> gnu.org
:
bug#39505
; Package
guix
.
(Thu, 20 Feb 2020 03:32:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #11 received at 39505 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hello Leo,
Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name> writes:
> As discussed in #39332 [0], it would be great if filesystem utility
> packages were added to the system profile if a file-systems entry uses
> that filesystem type.
>
> For example, btrfs-progs could be added if a btrfs filesystem was listed
> in file-systems.
>
> [0]
> https://issues.guix.info/issue/39332#3
What is the use case? Just having btrfs utilities to manage Btrfs file
systems, or is there some problems to avoid? I know that for NFS you
must add nfs-utils so that the util-linux provided 'mount' is able to
mount NFS shares.
If the later is the use case, perhaps we could try to hard reference to
each file system utility in util-linux, instead of having it dispatch
some tool supposed to be in the PATH? I'm not sure how difficult that
would be, and it'd for sure increase the size of util-linux, but perhaps
the pros outweighs the cons.
Maxim
Information forwarded
to
bug-guix <at> gnu.org
:
bug#39505
; Package
guix
.
(Thu, 20 Feb 2020 18:38:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #14 received at 39505 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:31:07PM -0500, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
> What is the use case? Just having btrfs utilities to manage Btrfs file
> systems, or is there some problems to avoid? I know that for NFS you
> must add nfs-utils so that the util-linux provided 'mount' is able to
> mount NFS shares.
It's just to manage the filesystems. For example, the equivalent of `df
-h` requires btrfs-progs.
> If the later is the use case, perhaps we could try to hard reference to
> each file system utility in util-linux, instead of having it dispatch
> some tool supposed to be in the PATH? I'm not sure how difficult that
> would be, and it'd for sure increase the size of util-linux, but perhaps
> the pros outweighs the cons.
Is there some integration between util-linux and btrfs-progs?
Information forwarded
to
bug-guix <at> gnu.org
:
bug#39505
; Package
guix
.
(Thu, 20 Feb 2020 20:33:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #17 received at 39505 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:31:07PM -0500, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
>> What is the use case? Just having btrfs utilities to manage Btrfs file
>> systems, or is there some problems to avoid? I know that for NFS you
>> must add nfs-utils so that the util-linux provided 'mount' is able to
>> mount NFS shares.
>
> It's just to manage the filesystems. For example, the equivalent of `df
> -h` requires btrfs-progs.
OK; so just as a convenience.
>> If the later is the use case, perhaps we could try to hard reference to
>> each file system utility in util-linux, instead of having it dispatch
>> some tool supposed to be in the PATH? I'm not sure how difficult that
>> would be, and it'd for sure increase the size of util-linux, but perhaps
>> the pros outweighs the cons.
>
> Is there some integration between util-linux and btrfs-progs?
No, at least mounting Btrfs doesn't require a mount.btrfs helper like
NFS does.
Maxim
Reply sent
to
Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
:
You have taken responsibility.
(Wed, 28 Sep 2022 23:55:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Notification sent
to
Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
:
bug acknowledged by developer.
(Wed, 28 Sep 2022 23:55:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #22 received at 39505-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi,
Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> writes:
> Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name> writes:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:31:07PM -0500, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
>>> What is the use case? Just having btrfs utilities to manage Btrfs file
>>> systems, or is there some problems to avoid? I know that for NFS you
>>> must add nfs-utils so that the util-linux provided 'mount' is able to
>>> mount NFS shares.
>>
>> It's just to manage the filesystems. For example, the equivalent of `df
>> -h` requires btrfs-progs.
[...]
I pushed the change made by Brice addressing this as
45eac6cdf5c8d9d7b0c564b105c790d2d2007799.
Closing, thanks!
Maxim
bug archived.
Request was from
Debbugs Internal Request <help-debbugs <at> gnu.org>
to
internal_control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
.
(Thu, 27 Oct 2022 11:24:04 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
This bug report was last modified 2 years and 257 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.