Bags

Bags

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello,

I’ve pushed a new branch, ‘wip-bags’, which changes the way
build systems work.  Basically, it introduces an intermediate
representation between packages and derivations, called “bags.”

The main difference between a bag and a package is that a bag lists all
the inputs of the build process, including the “implicit inputs” added
by the build system.

This simplifies the code and should unlock nifty features like ‘guix
environment’ and “grafts” (a trick for faster security updates; more on
that later.)

Comments welcome!

Ludo’.

Re: Bags

[Thompson, David]

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I’ve pushed a new branch, ‘wip-bags’, which changes the way
> build systems work.  Basically, it introduces an intermediate
> representation between packages and derivations, called “bags.”
>
> The main difference between a bag and a package is that a bag lists all
> the inputs of the build process, including the “implicit inputs” added
> by the build system.
>

I took a quick look through the commit log.  I like it!

> This simplifies the code and should unlock nifty features like ‘guix
> environment’ and “grafts” (a trick for faster security updates; more on
> that later.)

I'm excited. :)

- Dave

Re: Bags

[Mathieu Lirzin]

ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> The main difference between a bag and a package is that a bag lists all
> the inputs of the build process, including the “implicit inputs” added
> by the build system.

Can you explain what you mean by "implicit inputs"?

Re: Bags

[Thompson, David]

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Mathieu Lirzin
<mathieu.lirzin@openmailbox.org> wrote:
>
> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> The main difference between a bag and a package is that a bag lists all
>> the inputs of the build process, including the “implicit inputs” added
>> by the build system.
>
> Can you explain what you mean by "implicit inputs"?
>

Implicit inputs are dependencies that are not specified in a 'package'
form but are instead automatically added by the build system.  For
example, the GNU build system relies upon the coreutils, bash, etc.
These are implicit inputs, so packages that use the GNU build system
do not need to specify them manually.

Hope this helps.

- Dave

Re: Bags

[John Darrington]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 582 bytes --]

On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 02:33:53PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
     Hello,
     
     I’ve pushed a new branch, ‘wip-bags’, which changes the way
     build systems work.  Basically, it introduces an intermediate
     representation between packages and derivations, called “bags.”
     
     Comments welcome!

"Bags" can be too easily misread/typed as "bugs".
     
J'
     

-- 
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285  A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: Bags

[Ludovic Courtès]

John Darrington <john@darrington.wattle.id.au> skribis:

> On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 02:33:53PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>      Hello,
>      
>      I’ve pushed a new branch, ‘wip-bags’, which changes the way
>      build systems work.  Basically, it introduces an intermediate
>      representation between packages and derivations, called “bags.”
>      
>      Comments welcome!
>
> "Bags" can be too easily misread/typed as "bugs".

And bags can even be full of bugs!  ;-)

It’s an internal interface so normally not something one will usually
type or read about.  But I’m open to suggestions (the synonyms that
WordNet suggests aren’t good.)

Ludo’.

Re: Bags

[Alex Sassmannshausen]

Hello,

Ludovic Courtès writes:

> John Darrington <john@darrington.wattle.id.au> skribis:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 02:33:53PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> 
>> [...] called “bags.”
>>
>> "Bags" can be too easily misread/typed as "bugs".
>
> But I’m open to suggestions (the synonyms that WordNet suggests aren’t
> good.)

You could use something like 'parcels' (maybe too close in meaning to
package) or 'containers' (maybe too long). Both would build on the idea
that you can have packages inside a parcel, or container — much like bag
probably does as well (as in santa clause's bag of presents/packages).

Either way, don't feel particularly strongly about this, so just a
suggestion :-)

Alex

-- 
Sent with my mu4e

Re: Bags

[Eric Bavier]

Alex Sassmannshausen writes:

> Hello,
>
> Ludovic Courtès writes:
>
>> John Darrington <john@darrington.wattle.id.au> skribis:
>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 02:33:53PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>> 
>>> [...] called “bags.”
>>>
>>> "Bags" can be too easily misread/typed as "bugs".
>>
>> But I’m open to suggestions (the synonyms that WordNet suggests aren’t
>> good.)
>
> You could use something like 'parcels' (maybe too close in meaning to
> package) or 'containers' (maybe too long). Both would build on the idea
> that you can have packages inside a parcel, or container — much like bag
> probably does as well (as in santa clause's bag of presents/packages).

I like the simplicity of "bags".

"Sack" might also work, but might not be as good if we are worried about
people who are a/u-dyslexic ;)


-- 
Eric Bavier

Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

Re: Bags

[Ludovic Courtès]

Alex Sassmannshausen <alex.sassmannshausen@gmail.com> skribis:

> You could use something like 'parcels' (maybe too close in meaning to
> package) or 'containers' (maybe too long). Both would build on the idea
> that you can have packages inside a parcel, or container — much like bag
> probably does as well (as in santa clause's bag of presents/packages).

Actually I was trying to convey the idea that a “bag” is a “package”
with less ornamentation, if you see what I mean (because bags are
low-level representations of packages.)  So I think these suggestions
wouldn’t work well (and “containers” could be confused with Linux
containers.)

Thanks anyway.  :-)

Ludo’.

Re: Bags

[Cyril Roelandt]

On 10/03/2014 12:45 PM, Alex Sassmannshausen wrote:
> You could use something like 'parcels' (maybe too close in meaning to
> package) or 'containers' (maybe too long). Both would build on the idea
> that you can have packages inside a parcel, or container — much like bag
> probably does as well (as in santa clause's bag of presents/packages).

We should call these "backpacks" and have "backpackages".


Cyril.

Re: Bags

[Ludovic Courtès]

I’ve merged the ‘wip-bags’ branch (which means you’ll find yourself
downloading or rebuilding a number of things.)

Please report any test suite failure or other problem.

I would particularly welcome feedback from David wrt. the suitability
for ‘guix environment’.  :-)

Ludo’.

Re: Bags

[David Thompson]

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> I would particularly welcome feedback from David wrt. the suitability
> for ‘guix environment’.  :-)
>

I was able to implement a basic version of 'guix environment' last
night.  The bags API was very easy to use and gave me exactly the data I
was after.  Thanks!

-- 
David Thompson
Web Developer - Free Software Foundation - http://fsf.org
GPG Key: 0FF1D807
Support the FSF: https://fsf.org/donate