Exact same 'call-with-temporary-directory' defined twice?

Exact same 'call-with-temporary-directory' defined twice?

[zimoun]

Dear,

The exact same function named 'call-with-temporary-directory' is
defined in the 2 files:
 - guix/utils.scm
 - guix/swh.scm
Please, could you explain what is the motivation? CIrcular dependencies?

The comment in guix/swh.scm says ';FIXME: factorize'. Does it means:
move it in the file 'guix/utils.scm'?


Best regards,
simon

Re: Exact same 'call-with-temporary-directory' defined twice?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> skribis:

> The exact same function named 'call-with-temporary-directory' is
> defined in the 2 files:
>  - guix/utils.scm
>  - guix/swh.scm
> Please, could you explain what is the motivation? CIrcular dependencies?
>
> The comment in guix/swh.scm says ';FIXME: factorize'. Does it means:
> move it in the file 'guix/utils.scm'?

I believe the (shameful) reason is that the closure of (guix swh) is
imported no the build side and adding (guix utils) to it would pull in
too much stuff.

Ludo’.

Re: Exact same 'call-with-temporary-directory' defined twice?

[zimoun]

Hi,

On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 15:54, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

> > The comment in guix/swh.scm says ';FIXME: factorize'. Does it means:
> > move it in the file 'guix/utils.scm'?
>
> I believe the (shameful) reason is that the closure of (guix swh) is
> imported no the build side and adding (guix utils) to it would pull in
> too much stuff.

I see... thank you for the explanation.

Naively: does it make sense to move it to "guix/build/utils.scm"?


Cheers,
simon

Re: Exact same 'call-with-temporary-directory' defined twice?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> skribis:

> On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 15:54, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> > The comment in guix/swh.scm says ';FIXME: factorize'. Does it means:
>> > move it in the file 'guix/utils.scm'?
>>
>> I believe the (shameful) reason is that the closure of (guix swh) is
>> imported no the build side and adding (guix utils) to it would pull in
>> too much stuff.
>
> I see... thank you for the explanation.
>
> Naively: does it make sense to move it to "guix/build/utils.scm"?

No because it depends on (guix build syscalls) for ‘mkdtemp!’ and
there’s currently that assumption that (1) (guix build utils) can be
used on a statically-linked Guile, and (2) it has no dependencies.

Ludo’.

Re: Exact same 'call-with-temporary-directory' defined twice?

[zimoun]

Hi,

On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 23:53, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

> > Naively: does it make sense to move it to "guix/build/utils.scm"?
>
> No because it depends on (guix build syscalls) for ‘mkdtemp!’ and
> there’s currently that assumption that (1) (guix build utils) can be
> used on a statically-linked Guile, and (2) it has no dependencies.

Thank you for the explanations.  I am not sure to understand the
assumption (1) but never mind.


Cheers,
simon

Re: Exact same 'call-with-temporary-directory' defined twice?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> skribis:

> On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 23:53, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> > Naively: does it make sense to move it to "guix/build/utils.scm"?
>>
>> No because it depends on (guix build syscalls) for ‘mkdtemp!’ and
>> there’s currently that assumption that (1) (guix build utils) can be
>> used on a statically-linked Guile, and (2) it has no dependencies.
>
> Thank you for the explanations.  I am not sure to understand the
> assumption (1) but never mind.

Regarding (1): a statically-linked Guile cannot call ‘dynamic-link’ to
access libc symbols, so it cannot use FFI bindings to libc such as those
in (guix build syscalls).

HTH!

Ludo’.

Re: Exact same 'call-with-temporary-directory' defined twice?

[zimoun]

Hi Ludo,

On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 22:59, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

> Regarding (1): a statically-linked Guile cannot call ‘dynamic-link’ to
> access libc symbols, so it cannot use FFI bindings to libc such as those
> in (guix build syscalls).

Thank you for the explanations.  It helps. :-)


Cheers,
simon