On 2022-03-18 14:25, Ludovic Courtès wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
>
> Andrew Tropin <andrew@trop.in> skribis:
>
>>> +For example, this is how you would start an interactive shell in a
>>
>> s/interactive/login ?
>>
>> or interactive login shell
>
> Yeah.  I thought that as a user, what matters is that it’s interactive;
> the fact that it’s a “login shell” is more of an implementation detail,
> and too few people understand what that means anyway.  :-)
>
> [...]
>
>>> +Additionally, you can run a command in that container, instead of
>>> +spawning an interactive shell.  For instance, here is how you would
>>
>> In fact the sentence is correct, but gives a feeling that the shell
>> won't be executed at all.  Don't know if we need to change it somehow.
>
> I agree that the sentence is an approximation of how it does things, but
> hopefully it gives a good idea of what it.
>
>>> +  (display (G_ "
>>> +  -N, --network          allow containers to access the network"))
>>
>> Is plural form intended?
>
> (Copied from environment.scm.)  I think it’s grammatically OK.
>
>>> +(define (user-shell)
>>> +  (match (and=> (or (getenv "SHELL")
>>
>> Be aware that in some cases $SHELL can differ from the value in
>> /etc/passwd.  For example I set SHELL to the full path to zsh and all
>> interactive non-login shells are zsh for me, but my login shell is bash.
>
> Agreed, that’s why I thought $SHELL should take precedence.  (I used
> “SHELL=zsh guix home container …” and similar to test other shells.)
>

IIRC, $SHELL must contain a full path
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/xbd_chap08.html
If we want to control a shell type inside container it probably should
be a different variable, like GUIX_CONTAINER_SHELL=zsh.

>>> +                    (passwd:shell (getpwuid (getuid))))
>>> +                basename)
>>> +    ("zsh"  (file-append zsh "/bin/zsh"))
>>> +    ("fish" (file-append fish "/bin/fish"))
>>> +    ("gash" (file-append gash "/bin/gash"))
>>> +    (_      (file-append bash "/bin/bash"))))
>>
>> Why we use hardcoded shell packages?
>
> For reproducibility.
>
> Initially I thought about using the actual $SHELL (as long as it’s in
> the store).  However, that would make ‘guix home container’ stateful:
> it’d provide different results depending on the environment.
>
> I thought we’d rather avoid that.
>

What I meant by previous comment: to match a real state of the things
it's better to use a shell from /etc/passwd, because it will be launched
on user login and will read env vars and run all the following
processes, but to make it more reproducible and independent from system
state I think we always have to use hardcoded bash and inside the
container inspect the value of $SHELL set by login shell (hardcoded
bash) and spawn new shell if $SHELL is NOT empty.

>> 1. The will be built in case user use a zsh-patched for example.
>
> That’s the downside, yes.
>
> I don’t have a good answer to that.  I guess I value reproducibility
> more than customization in this case.
>
> Perhaps we could eventually add a ‘--shell’ option or similar if that
> helps, though.  WDYT?
>

I don't think we need such customization.  User can spawn nested shell
himself from home profile by `-- zsh` or if we inspect $SHELL and use it
value inside container it will be spawned automatically.

>>> +           (when term
>>> +             ;; Preserve TERM for proper interactive use.
>>> +             (setenv "TERM" term))
>>
>> Just a note: the shell can missbehave if terminfo files for current TERM
>> isn't present in the container (for example terminal package was removed
>> from home profile).  Idk how to properly cover this, but just letting
>> you know.  We can use TERM=dumb, but I'm not sure if it worth it.
>
> Good point.  In my tests preserving TERM was good enough for
> Bash/Readline, Zsh, and less (all from an xterm).  I suppose problems
> could happen with fancy curses apps and the like.
>
>> Very cool feature!  Looking forward to add it to my workflow. 
>
> Glad you like it!  It makes it easier to test new features or services,
> much like using ‘guix system vm’ when testing Guix System changes.
>
> Thanks for taking the time to review!

Sure!)

-- 
Best regards,
Andrew Tropin