From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: Questions regarding "Relocatable" option Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 23:32:49 +0200 Message-ID: <87woutp2im.fsf@gnu.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50243) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fVkih-0006S5-MZ for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 17:32:52 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fVkig-0007qN-O3 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 17:32:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: (YOANN P.'s message of "Tue, 19 Jun 2018 18:18:52 +0000") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: YOANN P Cc: "guix-devel@gnu.org" Hello Yoann, YOANN P skribis: > - Could we hope to see it included in the next release ? It=E2=80=99s definitely gonna be there. :-) Guix is mostly rolling releas= e, in fact. > - Could we hope to see it included by default in the binary tar.gz of thi= s next release to be able to use guix directly in an unprivileged environme= nt ? ( i dreaming of this every night ^^ ) I experimented with it a bit a reported my findings here: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2018-05/msg00139.html In short it=E2=80=99s still inconvenient, so it won=E2=80=99t happen for th= is release. To address the main limitation, I thought we could have a =E2=80=9C--relocatable=E2=80=9D package transformation option as well=C2=B9= that people could use to automatically wrap what they install. Food for thought=E2=80=A6 =C2=B9 https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/manual/html_node/Package-Transform= ation-Options.html > - Does the "relocatable" could be the default option and have an "--no-re= locatable" option for people who want to avoid the little extra time to sta= rt an application ? We already discussed this a while back, I think. :-) I think the default should remain unchanged given the extra overhead (in space and build time, not just startup time of the resulting binaries) that wrappers introduce, and given that user namespaces are missing on many systems still. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.