GNU bug report logs - #39505
Adding filesystem utilities based on file-systems

Previous Next

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.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
To: bug-guix <at> gnu.org
Subject: Adding filesystem utilities based on file-systems
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 19:31:22 -0500

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

Message #8 received at 39505 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
Cc: 39505 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#39505: Adding filesystem utilities based on file-systems
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 23:06:55 +0100

[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’.

Message #11 received at 39505 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
Cc: 39505 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#39505: Adding filesystem utilities based on file-systems
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:31:07 -0500

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

Message #14 received at 39505 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
To: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 39505 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#39505: Adding filesystem utilities based on file-systems
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:37:26 -0500

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?

Message #17 received at 39505 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
Cc: 39505 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#39505: Adding filesystem utilities based on file-systems
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:32:08 -0500

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

Message #22 received at 39505-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
Cc: 39505-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#39505: Adding filesystem utilities based on file-systems
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2022 19:53:59 -0400

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

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.