From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maxim Cournoyer Subject: bug#39505: Adding filesystem utilities based on file-systems Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:31:07 -0500 Message-ID: <87blpu2av8.fsf@apteryx.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> References: <20200208003122.GA31711@jasmine.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42321) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j4cZH-0003SQ-3i for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:32:04 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j4cZG-0004lH-06 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:32:03 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:37697) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j4cZF-0004l6-Sl for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:32:01 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j4cZF-0002Vn-Ny for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:32:01 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20200208003122.GA31711@jasmine.lan> (Leo Famulari's message of "Fri, 7 Feb 2020 19:31:22 -0500") List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Leo Famulari Cc: 39505@debbugs.gnu.org Hello Leo, Leo Famulari 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