From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: Guix binary tarball
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 10:16:09 +0200
Message-ID: <87y4ki5os6.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <20150515164602.GA13539@debian> <87382smaoy.fsf@netris.org>
	<87y4kjczzw.fsf@gnu.org> <87twv7t65s.fsf@netris.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53081)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1YvLeP-0004ru-K4
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 May 2015 04:16:22 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1YvLeK-0003Ma-Ro
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 May 2015 04:16:21 -0400
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:47327)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>)
	id 1YvLeK-0003MW-Ph
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 May 2015 04:16:16 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87twv7t65s.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Wed, 20
	May 2015 15:12:15 -0400")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> skribis:

> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes:
>
>> Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> skribis:
>>
>>> Here's a suggested patch:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/gnu/system/install.scm b/gnu/system/install.scm
>>> index 799851c..10fbfdd 100644
>>> --- a/gnu/system/install.scm
>>> +++ b/gnu/system/install.scm
>>> @@ -71,7 +71,14 @@ under /root/.guix-profile where GUIX is installed."
>>>            (with-directory-excursion %root
>>>              (zero? (system* "tar" "--xz" "--format=3Dgnu"
>>>                              "--owner=3Droot:0" "--group=3Droot:0"
>>> -                            "-cvf" #$output ".")))))
>>> +                            "-cvf" #$output
>>> +                            ;; Avoid adding /, /var, or /root to the t=
arball,
>>> +                            ;; so that the ownership and permissions o=
f those
>>> +                            ;; directories will not be overwritten when
>>> +                            ;; extracting the archive.
>>> +                            "./root/.guix-profile"
>>> +                            "./var/guix"
>>> +                            "./gnu")))))
>>>=20=20
>>>      (gexp->derivation "guix-tarball.tar.xz" build
>>>                        #:references-graphs `(("profile" ,profile))
>>>
>>> If we did this, then we could revert 8c3a5d7059 and avoid any use of
>>> --skip-old-files.  I would be in favor of this.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>
>> Yes, that=E2=80=99s even better, please commit and revert 8c3a5d7059.
>
> Done.
>
> I would advocate releasing 0.8.3 ASAP with these fixes, since the binary
> installation method in 0.8.2 has such serious problems.
>
> What do you think?

Not sure if =E2=80=9Cserious=E2=80=9D is appropriate (those who tested it a=
 month ago
had no problems using it, despite the UID issue), but yes, we should aim
for a quick release.  This time, we need to get feedback /before/ the
release.  ;-)

I also want to fully understand the problem that Ricardo reported before
we release again.

Thanks,
Ludo=E2=80=99.