From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Diego Nicola Barbato Subject: bug#37732: mps-youtube propagates util-linux Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 16:29:30 +0200 Message-ID: <87ftjuytdh.fsf@GlaDOS.home> References: <875zks27rf.fsf@GlaDOS.home> <878spo3en3.fsf@devup.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:37259) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iKNpw-0000ZZ-13 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 10:30:08 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iKNpq-0001Ed-OV for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 10:30:07 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:35842) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iKNpq-0001ET-B6 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 10:30:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iKNpq-0005Up-3H for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 10:30:02 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <878spo3en3.fsf@devup.no> (Marius Bakke's message of "Sun, 13 Oct 2019 16:26:40 +0200") 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.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Marius Bakke Cc: 37732@debbugs.gnu.org Hello Marius, Marius Bakke writes: [...] > Diego: one work-around you can try in the meantime is to create a > ~/setuid-programs, add it first on PATH, and symlink the required > binaries in there. Sorry for the inconvenience! No worries. I have simply removed 'mps-youtube' from my profile and use it with 'guix environment --ad-hoc mps-youtube -- mpsyt' instead. The difficult part was finding out which package propagated 'util-linux'. I used 'emacs-guix' and lucky guesses to find it (fortunately the profile only contained 12 packages). Is there a more convenient way to recursively show all propagated-inputs of a given package? It would be interesting to check how prevalent this propagation pollution is (another example that comes to mind is 'jami', which installs 125 programs under bin/, of which only about half can be attributed to 'util-linux'). Thanks, Diego