From: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@ist.tugraz.at>
To: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>
Cc: gwl-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: GWL bash-minimal masks input bash
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2022 07:55:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <64aee98d3027f4b59d8f2edd4cdbefb3d3f4f7af.camel@ist.tugraz.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <878royxi5n.fsf@elephly.net>
Am Dienstag, dem 12.07.2022 um 21:05 +0200 schrieb Ricardo Wurmus:
>
> Hi Liliana,
>
> > I have a scientific workflow that depends on a bash script using an
> > extension. (I wish I did not.) Said script is the least common
> > denominator working on all systems that have some basic utilities,
> > and needs therefore not consider the reproducibility of its inputs
> > (it is assumed, that those are up to date). However, at least on
> > my personal machine I want to ensure the reproducibility of the
> > entire workflow, including the invocation of said script.
> >
> > I wrote a GWL workflow that calls the script, but due to the
> > extension the script actually fails in the GWL context. This is
> > because GWL's process->script unconditionally conses bash-minimal
> > to the process inputs. It should probably check whether a bash
> > input already exists or alternatively just append (list (bash-
> > minimal)) instead.
>
> Would appending bash-minimal really help? Does it really give
> preference to your bash when resolving conflicts as it builds the
> profile?
Why should it not?
> Not sure how we should check for the presence of a package providing
> a shell. We can check for certain packages by name, of course, but
> it doesn’t feel right to me.
I'm fairly certain this lookup uses PATH or an equivalent
implementation in Guile (search-input-file springs to mind, which also
uses inputs in the order given).
> Any other ideas how to accommodate the need to swap out the package
> providing a shell?
You could check for the presence of bash in inputs before adding it,
but that'd be more error-prone. Alternatively the implicit vs.
explicit problem also exists in gnu-build-system, so that solution
could be adapted as well.
Cheers
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-13 5:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-06 8:38 GWL bash-minimal masks input bash Liliana Marie Prikler
2022-05-02 9:33 ` zimoun
2022-05-02 10:42 ` Liliana Marie Prikler
2022-07-12 19:05 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2022-07-13 5:55 ` Liliana Marie Prikler [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.guixwl.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=64aee98d3027f4b59d8f2edd4cdbefb3d3f4f7af.camel@ist.tugraz.at \
--to=liliana.prikler@ist.tugraz.at \
--cc=gwl-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=rekado@elephly.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).