From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christopher Baines Subject: Re: Tracking and inspecting how Guix changes over time Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 19:10:14 +0000 Message-ID: <87o97etcdl.fsf@cbaines.net> References: <87k1ia5sd4.fsf@cbaines.net> <87bm3lrnwm.fsf@gnu.org> <87zhr0u0gn.fsf@cbaines.net> <87lg2jiwky.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:55052) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1guMPT-0003DJ-SY for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 14:11:00 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1guMPP-0007DO-SD for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 14:10:57 -0500 In-reply-to: <87lg2jiwky.fsf@elephly.net> 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: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ricardo Wurmus writes: > Christopher Baines writes: > >>> For an automated system like this, it=E2=80=99s a bit different, so usi= ng a >>> container makes a lot of sense. I=E2=80=99d suggest having an option d= irectly >>> in (guix inferior) to allow users to choose whether to run an inferior >>> in separate name spaces. WDYT? >> >> That sounds great, I'm not quite sure how to make it happen though... >> >> So inferior-pipe in (guix inferior) uses open-pipe*. The root of the >> Linux container code in Guix looks to be run-container (gnu build >> linux-container). > > You can use =E2=80=9Ccall-with-container=E2=80=9D, which runs a thunk ins= ide a container. I did see that, but I'm unsure how it would be applicable. What would the thunk do? In trying to isolate the inferior Guix, the natural separation point that I've been considering is the point between the host Guix, and the inferior Guix that communicate over a pipe. Since the isolation relates to processes, it would be great if the repl process could run in a "container", while the process that started the repl remains outside of the container. As far as I see it, you could start the repl from within the thunk passed to "call-with-container", but then you've got three processes in play. The repl is running in a container, and it's connected to by the process that launched the repl after being cloned from the third initial process that called call-with-container. At this point, doing stuff with the information from the inferior Guix is a little difficult as it's all happening in the container. When then thunk ends, the only information that gets back to the remaining process is the exit status from waitpid. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQKTBAEBCgB9FiEEPonu50WOcg2XVOCyXiijOwuE9XcFAlxlvRZfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDNF ODlFRUU3NDU4RTcyMEQ5NzU0RTBCMjVFMjhBMzNCMEI4NEY1NzcACgkQXiijOwuE 9XcYAg/+M2TBeEHA+Lf+IMbhF4mrI8c4uXrTFMIGKLVfhG6YAWjhlSiayoP/C7OB BWSoOEz4BxPkA14AMsZUtCz/RpFokDVLHHZjuh35OftI1FlwEEy2tmQpQVPNlZTy KB2d4Issg/G9ZgQkCtfXlc6wyPCLkWUHLDkCsOllUzGeT+gWlBi+rIVofyfLU8vB G7Cis3/DuCjnXGBMz8sKMJUb6TtbTSB/iMog3dh4cuw+++BUA9/5GhTSDN/oxvuL 03qco9mEx/MDHyfHRQR5UH2nn6cUVEhIpV9/wO97P1o4CJjD5bhEyE5ghZO3vTo/ jn9OUCkcLiDfKa6xZs9zjqG8ZBZbAPuJaCLa0DSgnERRJyz/Quoiyp8jLadV/X1H 3LE0CVaZY+i76XTAS9hb0A25G8Jsp7zjtbGsnTK6Oh/AN51aqItKvIDsYE5DhgZq kFVo2qfQHaEFKCFa5vSYPAwF+zmO09YIg3qxlf9AmzTMo2JwyNThPWIQ8u4/mtFa VgOZy/L30jokcf59bHnfy70IDJekSzrtQTLK9uDpp1QCTVwuh8vqdwr3PIv1Y64b bWqF6BrGCDWELqi5u/Ux57yno9o/TxxP4IhUWGxlO2BUJ17q2v8YCnj9TQGT7prW RZ99UEFrRqo9bY94xvkJVS89fy1mo42fGZhRQI2ZeZxZP9KkfrQ= =UqnV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--