From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: proposal: with-file-writeable Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 14:22:39 +0100 Message-ID: <87bmgqbd5s.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87wozfp2wk.fsf@gnu.org> 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]:40979) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1emJUs-0002kr-Bd for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Feb 2018 08:22:48 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1emJUo-0005KX-7Z for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Feb 2018 08:22:46 -0500 Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([2a0c:e300::1]:34728) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1emJUn-0005KA-Vn for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Feb 2018 08:22:42 -0500 In-Reply-To: (=?utf-8?Q?=22G=C3=A1bor?= Boskovits"'s message of "Thu, 15 Feb 2018 08:25:33 +0100") 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: =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor?= Boskovits Cc: Guix-devel G=C3=A1bor Boskovits skribis: > Ok, the keep it this way. Another question, this came up, as > I was trying to find a nice solution to reset-gzip-timestamps failing. > I got different pieces of advice if I should reset the permissions after > resetting the timestamp, but I'm still not sure. It seems that the easiest > way to this would be to just add a call to make-file-writable to the phase > at the beginning, as we finally end up with a read-only one in the store > anyway. I feel that reseting the permissions is unneccesary additional > complexity. WDYT? I don=E2=80=99t know, is this (read-only permission on installed files) a c= ommon problem? As you can see I=E2=80=99m fairly conservative when it comes to changing (g= uix build utils). :-) The reason for this is that changing it entails full rebuilds. Thus, the approach so far is to try to make the procedures in there fairly generic (with keyword/optional parameters, etc.) so that they are applicable to a wide range of use cases. At the same time, we try to make changes there only when we=E2=80=99d have to repeat ourselves in packa= ge recipes. If a problem shows up in just one package, we adjust the package definition and leave (guix build utils) unchanged. Ludo=E2=80=99.