* bug#39505: Adding filesystem utilities based on file-systems
@ 2020-02-08 0:31 Leo Famulari
2020-02-10 22:06 ` Ludovic Courtès
2020-02-20 3:31 ` Maxim Cournoyer
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Leo Famulari @ 2020-02-08 0:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 39505
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* bug#39505: Adding filesystem utilities based on file-systems
2020-02-08 0:31 bug#39505: Adding filesystem utilities based on file-systems Leo Famulari
@ 2020-02-10 22:06 ` Ludovic Courtès
2020-02-20 3:31 ` Maxim Cournoyer
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2020-02-10 22:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Leo Famulari; +Cc: 39505
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 357 bytes --]
Hi Leo,
Leo Famulari <leo@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:
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/x-patch, Size: 741 bytes --]
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
[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 551 bytes --]
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’.
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* bug#39505: Adding filesystem utilities based on file-systems
2020-02-08 0:31 bug#39505: Adding filesystem utilities based on file-systems Leo Famulari
2020-02-10 22:06 ` Ludovic Courtès
@ 2020-02-20 3:31 ` Maxim Cournoyer
2020-02-20 18:37 ` Leo Famulari
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Maxim Cournoyer @ 2020-02-20 3:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Leo Famulari; +Cc: 39505
Hello Leo,
Leo Famulari <leo@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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* bug#39505: Adding filesystem utilities based on file-systems
2020-02-20 3:31 ` Maxim Cournoyer
@ 2020-02-20 18:37 ` Leo Famulari
2020-02-20 20:32 ` Maxim Cournoyer
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Leo Famulari @ 2020-02-20 18:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Maxim Cournoyer; +Cc: 39505
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?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* bug#39505: Adding filesystem utilities based on file-systems
2020-02-20 18:37 ` Leo Famulari
@ 2020-02-20 20:32 ` Maxim Cournoyer
2022-09-28 23:53 ` Maxim Cournoyer
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Maxim Cournoyer @ 2020-02-20 20:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Leo Famulari; +Cc: 39505
Leo Famulari <leo@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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* bug#39505: Adding filesystem utilities based on file-systems
2020-02-20 20:32 ` Maxim Cournoyer
@ 2022-09-28 23:53 ` Maxim Cournoyer
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Maxim Cournoyer @ 2022-09-28 23:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Leo Famulari; +Cc: 39505-done
Hi,
Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> writes:
> Leo Famulari <leo@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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-09-28 23:55 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-02-08 0:31 bug#39505: Adding filesystem utilities based on file-systems Leo Famulari
2020-02-10 22:06 ` Ludovic Courtès
2020-02-20 3:31 ` Maxim Cournoyer
2020-02-20 18:37 ` Leo Famulari
2020-02-20 20:32 ` Maxim Cournoyer
2022-09-28 23:53 ` Maxim Cournoyer
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).