bug#61841: bug#61255: [PATCH 0/5] Add support for the RPM format to "guix pack"

bug#61841: bug#61255: [PATCH 0/5] Add support for the RPM format to "guix pack"

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Maxim,

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> skribis:

> I’m really not sure what the impact of
> 68775338a510f84e63657ab09242d79e726fa457 is, nor whether it was the only
> solution to the problem.
>
> One thing that probably happens is that (default-guile) is now never
> used for <computed-file>, contrary to what was happening before.  The
> spirit is that (default-guile) would be used as the default for all the
> declarative file-like objects; gexp compilers refer to (default-guile),
> not (%guile-for-build).
>
> Importantly, (%guile-for-build) is a derivation, possibly built for
> another system, whereas (default-guile) is a package, which allows
> ‘lower-object’ to return the derivation for the right system type.

Commit 68775338a510f84e63657ab09242d79e726fa457 turned out to have
unintended side effects:

  https://issues.guix.gnu.org/61841

I fixed it with:

  a516a0ba93 gexp: computed-file: Do not honor %guile-for-build.
  fee1d08f0d pack: Make sure tests can run without a world rebuild.

Please take a look.

We should think about how to improve our processes to avoid such issues
in the future.  I did raise concerns about this very patch late at night
during FOSDEM, 24h after submission, and reaffirmed my viewpoint days
later.  I understand that delaying a nice patch series like this one is
unpleasant, but I think those concerns should have been taken into
account.

Ludo’.

bug#61841: bug#61255: [PATCH 0/5] Add support for the RPM format to "guix pack"

[Maxim Cournoyer]

Hi Ludovic,

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> Hi Maxim,
>
> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> skribis:
>
>> I’m really not sure what the impact of
>> 68775338a510f84e63657ab09242d79e726fa457 is, nor whether it was the only
>> solution to the problem.
>>
>> One thing that probably happens is that (default-guile) is now never
>> used for <computed-file>, contrary to what was happening before.  The
>> spirit is that (default-guile) would be used as the default for all the
>> declarative file-like objects; gexp compilers refer to (default-guile),
>> not (%guile-for-build).
>>
>> Importantly, (%guile-for-build) is a derivation, possibly built for
>> another system, whereas (default-guile) is a package, which allows
>> ‘lower-object’ to return the derivation for the right system type.
>
> Commit 68775338a510f84e63657ab09242d79e726fa457 turned out to have
> unintended side effects:
>
>   https://issues.guix.gnu.org/61841

Ugh.

> I fixed it with:
>
>   a516a0ba93 gexp: computed-file: Do not honor %guile-for-build.
>   fee1d08f0d pack: Make sure tests can run without a world rebuild.
>
> Please take a look.

Thank you.  I still think it'd be nicer if computed-file had a means to
honor %guile-for-build rather than having to accommodate it specially as
you did in fee1d08f0d, so that it'd be symmetrical to gexp->derivation
in that regard.  Why can't they?

> We should think about how to improve our processes to avoid such issues
> in the future.  I did raise concerns about this very patch late at night
> during FOSDEM, 24h after submission, and reaffirmed my viewpoint days
> later.  I understand that delaying a nice patch series like this one is
> unpleasant, but I think those concerns should have been taken into
> account.

You are right, I should have delayed this submission passed its 2 weeks,
to let some extra time to look at alternatives w.r.t. the
%guile-for-build patch.  Apologies for being too eager!

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

bug#61841: ‘guix shell’ computes different package derivation than ‘guix build’

[Ludovic Courtès]

Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

[...]

>> Commit 68775338a510f84e63657ab09242d79e726fa457 turned out to have
>> unintended side effects:
>>
>>   https://issues.guix.gnu.org/61841
>
> Ugh.
>
>> I fixed it with:
>>
>>   a516a0ba93 gexp: computed-file: Do not honor %guile-for-build.
>>   fee1d08f0d pack: Make sure tests can run without a world rebuild.
>>
>> Please take a look.
>
> Thank you.  I still think it'd be nicer if computed-file had a means to
> honor %guile-for-build rather than having to accommodate it specially as
> you did in fee1d08f0d, so that it'd be symmetrical to gexp->derivation
> in that regard.  Why can't they?

Like I wrote, ‘default-guile’ returns a package whereas
‘%guile-for-build’ returns a derivation.

The latter is inherently lower-level: it’s used together with the
monadic interface or with plain ‘derivation’, when we know which system
we’re targeting.  The former is higher-level, system-independent; it
must be used for <computed-file> and similar forms, which are
system-independent.

Ludo’.

bug#61841: ‘guix shell’ computes different package derivation than ‘guix build’

[Maxim Cournoyer]

Hi Ludo,

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> skribis:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>>> Commit 68775338a510f84e63657ab09242d79e726fa457 turned out to have
>>> unintended side effects:
>>>
>>>   https://issues.guix.gnu.org/61841
>>
>> Ugh.
>>
>>> I fixed it with:
>>>
>>>   a516a0ba93 gexp: computed-file: Do not honor %guile-for-build.
>>>   fee1d08f0d pack: Make sure tests can run without a world rebuild.
>>>
>>> Please take a look.
>>
>> Thank you.  I still think it'd be nicer if computed-file had a means to
>> honor %guile-for-build rather than having to accommodate it specially as
>> you did in fee1d08f0d, so that it'd be symmetrical to gexp->derivation
>> in that regard.  Why can't they?
>
> Like I wrote, ‘default-guile’ returns a package whereas
> ‘%guile-for-build’ returns a derivation.
>
> The latter is inherently lower-level: it’s used together with the
> monadic interface or with plain ‘derivation’, when we know which system
> we’re targeting.  The former is higher-level, system-independent; it
> must be used for <computed-file> and similar forms, which are
> system-independent.

I see, it's starting to make sense.  I'll sleep on it :-).

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim