From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Subject: bug#40612: guix build system --dry-run is broken Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2020 18:53:02 +0200 Message-ID: <87y2qs68i9.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87wo6jax7c.fsf@netris.org> <20200414171632.41dae6fd@alma-ubu> <87d088sn6j.fsf@gnu.org> <87ftd1uc11.fsf@netris.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:54339) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jPqjD-0004Y0-15 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 12:54:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jPqjB-0005Pz-Qo for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 12:54:02 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:60198) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jPqjB-0005Pk-Nh for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 12:54:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jPqjB-0006EJ-NS for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 12:54:01 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87ftd1uc11.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Fri, 17 Apr 2020 15:50:23 -0400") List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Mark H Weaver Cc: 40612@debbugs.gnu.org Hi Mark, Mark H Weaver skribis: > Yes, of course, I agree that it's not possible to present a build plan > ahead of time when grafts are enabled. That was the case before these > changes, and it's the case today. > > The only part I don't understand is why you decided that "--dry-run" > should no longer imply "--no-grafts". Does it work better for other > people? For me, the "--dry-run" output has become utterly useless > unless "--no-grafts" is included. I explained the pros and cons of having =E2=80=98--dry-run=E2=80=99 no long= er implying =E2=80=98--with-grafts=E2=80=99 here: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2020-03/msg00337.html =E2=80=98guix package --dry-run=E2=80=99 overall works well IME, except whe= n a dependency of a fixed-output derivation is missing, as explained above. =E2=80=98guix system=E2=80=99 doesn=E2=80=99t work so well as you note (tho= ugh again, that depends on what you=E2=80=99re building vs. what you have in store). I think we must find the remaining places that lack =E2=80=9Cparallelism=E2= =80=9D and address them, like I did for example in commit 2ad6eb0568ed69127aea987c009138e03b5b8954. (It would help if that code didn=E2=80=99t use the monadic interface this much because =E2=80=98lower-g= exp=E2=80=99 already does the right thing.) > Anyway, it's not that important to me. I can just fix it in my own > private branch. I filed this report because I thought it might benefit > other users to have this fixed upstream. It matters to every user so I think it=E2=80=99s worth fixing in our common= code base. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.