Re: tracking /etc/profile.d/*guix.sh in downstream distributions

[Philip McGrath <philip@philipmcgrath.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1709 bytes --]

On Friday, May 19, 2023 6:10:53 PM EDT Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> Philip McGrath recently pointed out that the /etc/profile.d/guix.sh
> snippet had not been updating in the Guix packaging for Debian:
> 
>   https://bugs.debian.org/1036304
> 
> (and as bonus complication, was also renamed to zzz-guix.sh)
> 
> The reason I never noticed before is because it is actually a manual
> process, with this script embedded in the sys_create_init_profile()
> function of etc/guix-install.sh ... and thus easy to miss when updating
> packaging.
> 
> What would be the impact of separating the /etc/profile.d/zzz-guix.sh
> into a separate file upstream? Would guix-install.sh need to be adjusted
> to guix-install.sh.in so as to embed the contents of this file?
> 

I think this would also make it easier for Guix contributors to edit the file. 
When I sent a patch for it, Ludo’ and I both got to learn about the obscure 
feature of Bash here documents it uses: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/56050#11
Ludo’s informal poll results suggest that others would be confused, too:
https://toot.aquilenet.fr/@civodul/108590952454715930

> Alternately, maybe guix-install.sh could be updated to optionally output
> or generate the zzz-guix.sh file either by passing commandline arguments
> or some other conditional mechanism?
> 

One reason I use Vagrant's packaging for Debian is that otherwise, Guix has no 
mechanism at all for updating the /etc/profile.d/ script, the default 
authorized substitute keys, etc. That's not exactly the same problem, but a 
solution that works well for downstream packagers seems like it make updates 
for other users an easier problem to address.

Philip

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]