'search-paths' should respect both user and system profile.

宋

宋文武 wrote on 4 Apr 2015 12:29

Recipients:(address . bug-guix@gnu.org)

Message-ID:877ftschjt.fsf@gmail.com

Currently, search-paths built only from packages in user's profile.
As reported by Andy Wingo in #guix, when I have:
  perl installed into system profile
  perl-xml-parser installed into user profile
  
guix package --search-paths won't give a hint about PERL5LIB,
so it's very likely end up with a broken XML::Parser.
Another interesting fact is that we have both guile and guix in
system profile, but the guix modules isn't work out-of-the-box
on GuixSD.

Ludovic Courtès wrote on 4 Apr 2015 23:04

Recipients:(name . 宋文武)(address . iyzsong@gmail.com)(address . 20255@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:87fv8fip01.fsf@gnu.org

宋文武 <iyzsong@gmail.com> skribis:

Toggle quote (8 lines)

> Currently, search-paths built only from packages in user's profile.

> As reported by Andy Wingo in #guix, when I have:

> perl installed into system profile

> perl-xml-parser installed into user profile

> guix package --search-paths won't give a hint about PERL5LIB,

> so it's very likely end up with a broken XML::Parser.

Rather it ends up with no XML::Parser, no?

That said, I’m not sure how this could be improved. We could hard-code

lookup in /run/current-system/profile/. OTOH that’s not different from

installing perl in one profile, and perl-xml-parser in another

(arbitrary) profile, which ‘guix package’ cannot be aware of.

WDYT?

Toggle quote (4 lines)

> Another interesting fact is that we have both guile and guix in

> system profile, but the guix modules isn't work out-of-the-box

> on GuixSD.

(But guix.el *does* work out of the box.)

For a start, what about augmenting /etc/profile:

Toggle diff (13 lines)diff --git a/gnu/system.scm b/gnu/system.scm
index 0d510b6..bcc4919 100644
--- a/gnu/system.scm
+++ b/gnu/system.scm
@@ -447,6 +447,8 @@ export PATH=$HOME/.guix-profile/bin:/run/current-system/profile/bin
 export PATH=/run/setuid-programs:/run/current-system/profile/sbin:$PATH
 export MANPATH=$HOME/.guix-profile/share/man:/run/current-system/profile/share/man
 export INFOPATH=$HOME/.guix-profile/share/info:/run/current-system/profile/share/info
+export GUILE_LOAD_PATH=$HOME/share/guile/site/2.0:/run/current-system/profile/share/guile/site/2.0
+export GUILE_LOAD_COMPILED_PATH=$HOME/share/guile/site/2.0:/run/current-system/profile/share/guile/site/2.0
 
 export XDG_DATA_DIRS=$HOME/.guix-profile/share:/run/current-system/profile/share
 export XDG_CONFIG_DIRS=$HOME/.guix-profile/etc/xdg:/run/current-system/profile/etc/xdg

Thanks,

Ludo’.

宋

宋文武 wrote on 5 Apr 2015 05:39

Recipients:(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)(address . 20255@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:87d23j1bxk.fsf@gmail.com

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

Toggle quote (18 lines)> 宋文武 <iyzsong@gmail.com> skribis:
>
>> Currently, search-paths built only from packages in user's profile.
>> As reported by Andy Wingo in #guix, when I have:
>>   perl installed into system profile
>>   perl-xml-parser installed into user profile
>>   
>> guix package --search-paths won't give a hint about PERL5LIB,
>> so it's very likely end up with a broken XML::Parser.
>
> Rather it ends up with no XML::Parser, no?
>
> That said, I’m not sure how this could be improved.  We could hard-code
> lookup in /run/current-system/profile/.  OTOH that’s not different from
> installing perl in one profile, and perl-xml-parser in another
> (arbitrary) profile, which ‘guix package’ cannot be aware of.
>
> WDYT?

As 'guix package' is for only one profile, that's fine.
Since we can get search-paths from system profile using:
  guix package -p /run/current-system/profile --search-paths

I think the missing is to check whether we are under GuixSD,
and then merge those 2 search-paths object in scheme level
to get a full search-paths.

Or better to generate a 'profile' script for each manifest, and then
merged in shell level, so it can work out-of-the-box. How about:
  - /etc/profile:
    # configuration for the whole system goes here.
    # shouldn't refer profile paths.
    export LANG=en_US.utf8
    export SSL_CERT_DIR=/etc/ssl/certs
    export LINUX_MODULE_DIRECTORY=/run/booted-system/kernel/lib/modules
    [...]

    source /run/current-system/profile/etc/profile

    if [ -f $HOME/.guix-profile/etc/profile ]; then
      source $HOME/.guix-profile/etc/profile
    fi

    # honor setuid-programs
    export PATH=/run/setuid-programs:$PATH

  - /run/current-system/profile/etc/profile:
    export PATH=/run/current-system/profile/bin:/run/current-system/profile/sbin:$PATH
    export MANPATH=/run/current-system/profile/share/man:$PATH
    [...]
    
  - ~/.guix-profile/etc/profile:
    export PATH=~/.guix-profile/bin:~/.guix-profile/sbin:$PATH
    [...]

The idea to generate profile from search-paths is not new,
I heard it from you IIRC.
I think it's the time to do it.

Ludovic Courtès wrote on 5 Apr 2015 20:15

Recipients:(name . 宋文武)(address . iyzsong@gmail.com)(address . 20255@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:871tjyfnl8.fsf@gnu.org

宋文武 <iyzsong@gmail.com> skribis:

Toggle quote (4 lines)

> As 'guix package' is for only one profile, that's fine.

> Since we can get search-paths from system profile using:

> guix package -p /run/current-system/profile --search-paths

Right.

Toggle quote (36 lines)> I think the missing is to check whether we are under GuixSD,
> and then merge those 2 search-paths object in scheme level
> to get a full search-paths.
>
> Or better to generate a 'profile' script for each manifest, and then
> merged in shell level, so it can work out-of-the-box. How about:
>   - /etc/profile:
>     # configuration for the whole system goes here.
>     # shouldn't refer profile paths.
>     export LANG=en_US.utf8
>     export SSL_CERT_DIR=/etc/ssl/certs
>     export LINUX_MODULE_DIRECTORY=/run/booted-system/kernel/lib/modules
>     [...]
>
>     source /run/current-system/profile/etc/profile
>
>     if [ -f $HOME/.guix-profile/etc/profile ]; then
>       source $HOME/.guix-profile/etc/profile
>     fi
>
>     # honor setuid-programs
>     export PATH=/run/setuid-programs:$PATH
>
>   - /run/current-system/profile/etc/profile:
>     export PATH=/run/current-system/profile/bin:/run/current-system/profile/sbin:$PATH
>     export MANPATH=/run/current-system/profile/share/man:$PATH
>     [...]
>     
>   - ~/.guix-profile/etc/profile:
>     export PATH=~/.guix-profile/bin:~/.guix-profile/sbin:$PATH
>     [...]
>
> The idea to generate profile from search-paths is not new,
> I heard it from you IIRC.
> I think it's the time to do it.

Agreed, the plan makes sense and I think we have all the bits.

A related question is whether to encode search path environment

variables into the manifest (currently they are “guessed” by looking at

same-named packages; see (guix build package).) I think that would

probably simplify things and make it easier to share this environment

variable code.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

Ludo’.

宋

宋文武 wrote on 6 Apr 2015 06:02

Recipients:(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)(address . 20255@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:876199q4z1.fsf@gmail.com

Toggle quote (15 lines)> [...]
>>
>> The idea to generate profile from search-paths is not new,
>> I heard it from you IIRC.
>> I think it's the time to do it.
>
> Agreed, the plan makes sense and I think we have all the bits.
>
> A related question is whether to encode search path environment
> variables into the manifest (currently they are “guessed” by looking at
> same-named packages; see (guix build package).)  I think that would
> probably simplify things and make it easier to share this environment
> variable code.
>
> Thoughts?

I see, currently search-paths depends on the packages recipes. If we
update the related scheme code, then search-paths got updated, even we
didn't touch packages in profile at all.  It's a little confusing.
So I think we should encode the search-paths for each package in
manifest.

Toggle quote (2 lines)

> Thanks,

> Ludo’.

Mark H Weaver wrote on 6 Apr 2015 10:24

Recipients:(name . 宋文武)(address . iyzsong@gmail.com)

Message-ID:87lhi5zmsp.fsf@netris.org

宋文武 <iyzsong@gmail.com> writes:

Toggle quote (21 lines)>> [...]
>>>
>>> The idea to generate profile from search-paths is not new,
>>> I heard it from you IIRC.
>>> I think it's the time to do it.
>>
>> Agreed, the plan makes sense and I think we have all the bits.
>>
>> A related question is whether to encode search path environment
>> variables into the manifest (currently they are “guessed” by looking at
>> same-named packages; see (guix build package).)  I think that would
>> probably simplify things and make it easier to share this environment
>> variable code.
>>
>> Thoughts?
> I see, currently search-paths depends on the packages recipes. If we
> update the related scheme code, then search-paths got updated, even we
> didn't touch packages in profile at all.  It's a little confusing.
> So I think we should encode the search-paths for each package in
> manifest.

I agree.

Mark

Ludovic Courtès wrote on 3 May 2015 00:12

Recipients:(name . 宋文武)(address . iyzsong@gmail.com)(address . 20255@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:87ioca4ojo.fsf@gnu.org

宋文武 <iyzsong@gmail.com> skribis:

Toggle quote (21 lines)>> [...]
>>>
>>> The idea to generate profile from search-paths is not new,
>>> I heard it from you IIRC.
>>> I think it's the time to do it.
>>
>> Agreed, the plan makes sense and I think we have all the bits.
>>
>> A related question is whether to encode search path environment
>> variables into the manifest (currently they are “guessed” by looking at
>> same-named packages; see (guix build package).)  I think that would
>> probably simplify things and make it easier to share this environment
>> variable code.
>>
>> Thoughts?
> I see, currently search-paths depends on the packages recipes. If we
> update the related scheme code, then search-paths got updated, even we
> didn't touch packages in profile at all.  It's a little confusing.
> So I think we should encode the search-paths for each package in
> manifest.

Done in dedb17a.

That will make it easier to generate environment variable settings.

Ludo’.

Ludovic Courtès wrote on 4 May 2015 23:44

Recipients:(name . 宋文武)(address . iyzsong@gmail.com)(address . 20255@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:87lhh43tn0.fsf@gnu.org

宋文武 <iyzsong@gmail.com> skribis:

Toggle quote (28 lines)> Or better to generate a 'profile' script for each manifest, and then
> merged in shell level, so it can work out-of-the-box. How about:
>   - /etc/profile:
>     # configuration for the whole system goes here.
>     # shouldn't refer profile paths.
>     export LANG=en_US.utf8
>     export SSL_CERT_DIR=/etc/ssl/certs
>     export LINUX_MODULE_DIRECTORY=/run/booted-system/kernel/lib/modules
>     [...]
>
>     source /run/current-system/profile/etc/profile
>
>     if [ -f $HOME/.guix-profile/etc/profile ]; then
>       source $HOME/.guix-profile/etc/profile
>     fi
>
>     # honor setuid-programs
>     export PATH=/run/setuid-programs:$PATH
>
>   - /run/current-system/profile/etc/profile:
>     export PATH=/run/current-system/profile/bin:/run/current-system/profile/sbin:$PATH
>     export MANPATH=/run/current-system/profile/share/man:$PATH
>     [...]
>     
>   - ~/.guix-profile/etc/profile:
>     export PATH=~/.guix-profile/bin:~/.guix-profile/sbin:$PATH
>     [...]

There’s a further complication here: ‘profile-derivation’, which builds

the profile, doesn’t know its user-visible name ~/.guix-profile. It

just knows its store file name. However, we don’t want etc/profile to

read:

export PATH=/gnu/store/...-profile/bin:$PATH

because then, the user’s environment variables in a running session

would keep pointing to a given profile generation.

So we have to tell ‘profile-generation’ what the user-visible name of

the profile is going to be. Attached is a very rough patch to do that.

This is not so nice because all user interfaces will now have to pass

that #:target parameter or etc/profile will be “wrong.”

Another option would be to simply run:

eval `guix package -p ~/.guix-profile --search-paths`

This has two downsides:

1. It takes ~200 ms to run on my laptop, which can maybe be

noticeable; OTOH it’s only for interactive shells, so maybe that’s

OK.

2. If there’s a manifest format change and /etc/profile calls a ‘guix’

command that cannot handle the manifest format (because it’s older

than the ‘guix’ used to build the profile), then it doesn’t work at

all (that’s a bit contrived, but not completely impossible.)

Thoughts?

Ludo’.

Modified guix/profiles.scm

Toggle diff (111 lines)diff --git a/guix/profiles.scm b/guix/profiles.scm
index 8445e00..308dc23 100644
--- a/guix/profiles.scm
+++ b/guix/profiles.scm
@@ -582,10 +582,15 @@ MANIFEST.  Single-file bundles are required by programs such as Git and Lynx."
 
 (define* (profile-derivation manifest
                              #:key
+                             target
                              (hooks %default-profile-hooks))
   "Return a derivation that builds a profile (aka. 'user environment') with
 the given MANIFEST.  The profile includes additional derivations returned by
-the monadic procedures listed in HOOKS--such as an Info 'dir' file, etc."
+the monadic procedures listed in HOOKS--such as an Info 'dir' file, etc.
+
+When TARGET is not #f, it must be a string denoting the file name under which
+the profile will be available--e.g., \"/home/rms/.guix-profile\".  This name
+is used in the profile's 'etc/profile' file (read that again.)"
   (mlet %store-monad ((extras (if (null? (manifest-entries manifest))
                                   (return '())
                                   (sequence %store-monad
@@ -598,20 +603,72 @@ the monadic procedures listed in HOOKS--such as an Info 'dir' file, etc."
 
     (define builder
       #~(begin
-          (use-modules (ice-9 pretty-print)
-                       (guix build union))
+          (use-modules (ice-9 match)
+                       (ice-9 regex)
+                       (ice-9 pretty-print)
+                       (guix build union)
+                       (guix build utils)
+                       (guix search-paths))
+
+          (define target
+            '#$target)
+
+          (define search-paths
+            (map sexp->search-path-specification
+                 '#$(map search-path-specification->sexp
+                         (append-map manifest-entry-search-paths
+                                     (manifest-entries manifest)))))
+
+          (define (use-target value separator)
+            (let ((items ((@@ (guix search-paths) string-tokenize*)
+                          value separator)))
+              (string-join (map (lambda (str)
+                                  (string-append target
+                                                 (string-drop str
+                                                              (string-length
+                                                               #$output))))
+                                items)
+                           separator)))
+
+          (define write-environment-variable-definition
+            (match-lambda
+              ((spec . value)
+               (let ((variable (search-path-specification-variable spec))
+                     (sep      (search-path-specification-separator spec)))
+                 (display
+                  (environment-variable-definition variable
+                                                   (if target
+                                                       (use-target value sep)
+                                                       value)
+                                                   #:separator sep
+                                                   #:kind 'prefix))
+                 (newline)))))
 
           (setvbuf (current-output-port) _IOLBF)
           (setvbuf (current-error-port) _IOLBF)
 
+          ;; Make the symlinks.
           (union-build #$output '#$inputs
                        #:log-port (%make-void-port "w"))
+
+          ;; Store meta-data.
           (call-with-output-file (string-append #$output "/manifest")
             (lambda (p)
-              (pretty-print '#$(manifest->gexp manifest) p)))))
+              (pretty-print '#$(manifest->gexp manifest) p)))
+
+          ;; Store a ready-to-use Bash profile.
+          (mkdir-p (string-append #$output "/etc"))
+          (with-output-to-file (string-append #$output "/etc/profile")
+            (lambda ()
+              (let ((variables (evaluate-search-paths search-paths #$output)))
+                (for-each write-environment-variable-definition
+                          variables))))))
 
     (gexp->derivation "profile" builder
-                      #:modules '((guix build union))
+                      #:modules '((guix build union)
+                                  (guix build utils)
+                                  (guix search-paths)
+                                  (guix records))
                       #:local-build? #t)))
 
 (define (profile-regexp profile)
	Modified   guix/scripts/package.scm
diff --git a/guix/scripts/package.scm b/guix/scripts/package.scm
index 7f53af7..38ec8ed 100644
--- a/guix/scripts/package.scm
+++ b/guix/scripts/package.scm
@@ -833,6 +833,7 @@ more information.~%"))
                (let* ((prof-drv (run-with-store (%store)
                                   (profile-derivation
                                    new
+                                   #:target (user-friendly-profile profile)
                                    #:hooks (if bootstrap?
                                                '()
                                                %default-profile-hooks))))

宋

宋文武 wrote on 5 May 2015 10:28

Recipients:(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)(address . 20255@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:87k2wnqvga.fsf@gmail.com

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

Toggle quote (39 lines)> 宋文武 <iyzsong@gmail.com> skribis:
>
>> Or better to generate a 'profile' script for each manifest, and then
>> merged in shell level, so it can work out-of-the-box. How about:
>>   - /etc/profile:
>>     # configuration for the whole system goes here.
>>     # shouldn't refer profile paths.
>>     export LANG=en_US.utf8
>>     export SSL_CERT_DIR=/etc/ssl/certs
>>     export LINUX_MODULE_DIRECTORY=/run/booted-system/kernel/lib/modules
>>     [...]
>>
>>     source /run/current-system/profile/etc/profile
>>
>>     if [ -f $HOME/.guix-profile/etc/profile ]; then
>>       source $HOME/.guix-profile/etc/profile
>>     fi
>>
>>     # honor setuid-programs
>>     export PATH=/run/setuid-programs:$PATH
>>
>>   - /run/current-system/profile/etc/profile:
>>     export PATH=/run/current-system/profile/bin:/run/current-system/profile/sbin:$PATH
>>     export MANPATH=/run/current-system/profile/share/man:$PATH
>>     [...]
>>     
>>   - ~/.guix-profile/etc/profile:
>>     export PATH=~/.guix-profile/bin:~/.guix-profile/sbin:$PATH
>>     [...]
>
> There’s a further complication here: ‘profile-derivation’, which builds
> the profile, doesn’t know its user-visible name ~/.guix-profile.  It
> just knows its store file name.  However, we don’t want etc/profile to
> read:
>
>   export PATH=/gnu/store/...-profile/bin:$PATH
>
> because then, the user’s environment variables in a running session
> would keep pointing to a given profile generation.

Indeed.  Run guix to install a package should make it available
immediately.  Currently, we have 'PATH=~/.guix-profile/bin' in
profile and print hint for additional variables.
(Note that when profile changes, even we build all variables with the
location they going to be, a hint or re-source is still needed when the
new profile bring new variables.)

Toggle quote (23 lines)>
> So we have to tell ‘profile-generation’ what the user-visible name of
> the profile is going to be.  Attached is a very rough patch to do that.
> This is not so nice because all user interfaces will now have to pass
> that #:target parameter or etc/profile will be “wrong.”
>
> Another option would be to simply run:
>
>   eval `guix package -p ~/.guix-profile --search-paths`
>
> This has two downsides:
>
>   1. It takes ~200 ms to run on my laptop, which can maybe be
>      noticeable; OTOH it’s only for interactive shells, so maybe that’s
>      OK.
>
>   2. If there’s a manifest format change and /etc/profile calls a ‘guix’
>      command that cannot handle the manifest format (because it’s older
>      than the ‘guix’ used to build the profile), then it doesn’t work at
>      all (that’s a bit contrived, but not completely impossible.)
>
> Thoughts?
>

How about using a shell variable as input for the location:

(replace /gnu/store/xxx with $GUIX_PROFILE)

# etc/profile

export PATH=$GUIX_PROFILE/bin:$PATH

export MANPATH=$GUIX_PROFILE/share/man:$MANPATH

...

Then when 'source' it, we pass the location:

(we did know where $GUIX_PROFILE is when do the 'source')

# ~/.bash_profile

GUIX_PROFILE=$HOME/.guix-profile

if [ -f $GUIX_PROFILE/etc/profile ]; then

. $GUIX_PROFILE/etc/profile

# /etc/profile

GUIX_PROFILE=/run/current-system/profile

source $GUIX_PROFILE/etc/profile

Ludovic Courtès wrote on 5 May 2015 14:35

Recipients:(name . 宋文武)(address . iyzsong@gmail.com)(address . 20255@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:87h9rr5hje.fsf@gnu.org

宋文武 <iyzsong@gmail.com> skribis:

Toggle quote (21 lines)> How about using a shell variable as input for the location:
> (replace /gnu/store/xxx with $GUIX_PROFILE)
>
>   # etc/profile
>   export PATH=$GUIX_PROFILE/bin:$PATH
>   export MANPATH=$GUIX_PROFILE/share/man:$MANPATH
>   ...
>
> Then when 'source' it, we pass the location:
> (we did know where $GUIX_PROFILE is when do the 'source')
>
>   # ~/.bash_profile
>   GUIX_PROFILE=$HOME/.guix-profile
>   if [ -f $GUIX_PROFILE/etc/profile ]; then
>     . $GUIX_PROFILE/etc/profile
>   fi
>
>   # /etc/profile
>   GUIX_PROFILE=/run/current-system/profile
>   source $GUIX_PROFILE/etc/profile

Yes, but we would also like users to be able to source

~/.guix-profile/etc/profile themselves directly, and it wouldn’t be nice

to ask them to set GUIX_PROFILE before sourcing it.

Ludo’.

Ludovic Courtès wrote on 6 May 2015 18:35

Recipients:(name . 宋文武)(address . iyzsong@gmail.com)(address . 20255@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:87fv79u0ik.fsf@gnu.org

宋文武 <iyzsong@gmail.com> skribis:

Toggle quote (21 lines)> How about using a shell variable as input for the location:
> (replace /gnu/store/xxx with $GUIX_PROFILE)
>
>   # etc/profile
>   export PATH=$GUIX_PROFILE/bin:$PATH
>   export MANPATH=$GUIX_PROFILE/share/man:$MANPATH
>   ...
>
> Then when 'source' it, we pass the location:
> (we did know where $GUIX_PROFILE is when do the 'source')
>
>   # ~/.bash_profile
>   GUIX_PROFILE=$HOME/.guix-profile
>   if [ -f $GUIX_PROFILE/etc/profile ]; then
>     . $GUIX_PROFILE/etc/profile
>   fi
>
>   # /etc/profile
>   GUIX_PROFILE=/run/current-system/profile
>   source $GUIX_PROFILE/etc/profile

I ended up doing that in d664f1b. Please check d664f1b and d995942 and

report and issues/bugs.

Part of the initial problem you reported had to do with combining

profiles (perl in one profile, perl-xml-parser in another.) This part

is not addressed yet, and it turns out to be more common than I

initially thought: consider for instance MANPATH (with man-db installed

in the system profile and man pages in the user’s profile.)

Unfortunately the etc/profile files are not going to allow us to solve

that. ‘guix package --search-paths’ could do the actual combination,

though.

Thanks,

Ludo’.

Ludovic Courtès wrote on 12 Nov 2015 12:13

Recipients:(name . 宋文武)(address . iyzsong@gmail.com)

Message-ID:87y4e3zd00.fsf@gnu.org

Some progress has been made: fc2d233 allows search paths for multiple

profiles to be combined.

So I think I will eventually (‘guix-devel’ needs to be updated first)

change /etc/profile to do:

eval `guix package -p /run/current-system/profile \

-p $HOME/.guix-profile --search-paths`

That should solve the combined profile issue.

This operation takes ~400ms on my machine. This would be a problem if

we had to do it every time a shell is started, but here we only need to

do it for log-in shells, which is rare enough.

WDYT?

Thanks,

Ludo’.

Ludovic Courtès wrote on 19 Nov 2015 23:32

Recipients:(name . 宋文武)(address . iyzsong@gmail.com)(address . 20255@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:87lh9tvcws.fsf@gnu.org

ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis:

Toggle quote (27 lines)> 宋文武 <iyzsong@gmail.com> skribis:
>
>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> The idea to generate profile from search-paths is not new,
>>>> I heard it from you IIRC.
>>>> I think it's the time to do it.
>>>
>>> Agreed, the plan makes sense and I think we have all the bits.
>>>
>>> A related question is whether to encode search path environment
>>> variables into the manifest (currently they are “guessed” by looking at
>>> same-named packages; see (guix build package).)  I think that would
>>> probably simplify things and make it easier to share this environment
>>> variable code.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>> I see, currently search-paths depends on the packages recipes. If we
>> update the related scheme code, then search-paths got updated, even we
>> didn't touch packages in profile at all.  It's a little confusing.
>> So I think we should encode the search-paths for each package in
>> manifest.
>
> Done in dedb17a.
>
> That will make it easier to generate environment variable settings.

Here’s the patch that does that, to try on b2a7223 or later.

Could you comment and give it a try? My main concern was the latency

introduced at log-in shells, but it’s OK, at least on my i5+SSD laptop.

Toggle snippet (11 lines)

$ time guix package -p ~/.guix-profile -p /run/current-system/profile --search-paths > /dev/null

real 0m0.290s

user 0m0.372s

sys 0m0.028s

$ guix package -I | wc -l

215

$ guix package -p /run/current-system/profile -I | wc -l

I’ll push it soon if there are no objections.

TIA!

Ludo’.

Toggle diff (63 lines)diff --git a/gnu/system.scm b/gnu/system.scm
index 2755d85..7d1d33e 100644
--- a/gnu/system.scm
+++ b/gnu/system.scm
@@ -429,35 +429,49 @@ export SSL_CERT_DIR=/etc/ssl/certs
 export SSL_CERT_FILE=\"$SSL_CERT_DIR/ca-certificates.crt\"
 export GIT_SSL_CAINFO=\"$SSL_CERT_FILE\"
 
-# Crucial variables that could be missing in the profiles' 'etc/profile'
-# because they would require combining both profiles.
-# FIXME: See <http://bugs.gnu.org/20255>.
-export MANPATH=$HOME/.guix-profile/share/man:/run/current-system/profile/share/man
-export INFOPATH=$HOME/.guix-profile/share/info:/run/current-system/profile/share/info
+# Search paths for GLib schemas, GTK+ icons, and so on.
 export XDG_DATA_DIRS=$HOME/.guix-profile/share:/run/current-system/profile/share
 export XDG_CONFIG_DIRS=$HOME/.guix-profile/etc/xdg:/run/current-system/profile/etc/xdg
 
 # Ignore the default value of 'PATH'.
 unset PATH
 
-# Load the system profile's settings.
+if [ -x /run/current-system/profile/bin/guix ]
+then
+  # Crucial variables such as 'MANPATH' or 'INFOPATH' may be missing from the
+  # profiles' individual 'etc/profile'.  Thus, combine both profiles when
+  # computing the search paths.
+  #
+  # This may take a few hundred milliseconds, but it's OK because this is
+  # performed for log-in shells only.
+  eval `/run/current-system/profile/bin/guix package \\
+          -p /run/current-system/profile             \\
+          -p \"$HOME/.guix-profile\" --search-paths`
+else
+  # In the unlikely case that Guix is not in the global profile,
+  # fall back to the simpler, yet less accurate method (see
+  # <http://bugs.gnu.org/20255>.)
   GUIX_PROFILE=/run/current-system/profile \\
   . /run/current-system/profile/etc/profile
 
-# Prepend setuid programs.
-export PATH=/run/setuid-programs:$PATH
-
   if [ -f \"$HOME/.guix-profile/etc/profile\" ]
   then
     # Load the user profile's settings.
     GUIX_PROFILE=\"$HOME/.guix-profile\" \\
     . \"$HOME/.guix-profile/etc/profile\"
-else
+  fi
+fi
+
+if [ ! -f \"$HOME/.guix-profile\" ]
+then
   # At least define this one so that basic things just work
   # when the user installs their first package.
   export PATH=\"$HOME/.guix-profile/bin:$PATH\"
 fi
 
+# Prepend setuid programs.
+export PATH=/run/setuid-programs:$PATH
+
 # Append the directory of 'site-start.el' to the search path.
 export EMACSLOADPATH=:/etc/emacs

Alex Kost wrote on 20 Nov 2015 23:42

Recipients:(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)

Message-ID:87h9kguwc4.fsf@gmail.com

Ludovic Courtès (2015-11-20 01:32 +0300) wrote:

Toggle quote (13 lines)> -# Load the system profile's settings.
> +if [ -x /run/current-system/profile/bin/guix ]
> +then
> +  # Crucial variables such as 'MANPATH' or 'INFOPATH' may be missing from the
> +  # profiles' individual 'etc/profile'.  Thus, combine both profiles when
> +  # computing the search paths.
> +  #
> +  # This may take a few hundred milliseconds, but it's OK because this is
> +  # performed for log-in shells only.
> +  eval `/run/current-system/profile/bin/guix package \\
> +          -p /run/current-system/profile             \\
> +          -p \"$HOME/.guix-profile\" --search-paths`

Sorry, but it's not OK for me.  As a user, I'm *strongly* against
running 'guix' (or any other program) in /etc/profile.  I would really
like to have an option to avoid this.  Is it possible?

-- 
Thanks,
Alex

Ludovic Courtès wrote on 21 Nov 2015 09:57

Recipients:(name . Alex Kost)(address . alezost@gmail.com)

Message-ID:87ziy7d90z.fsf@gnu.org

Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:

Toggle quote (18 lines)> Ludovic Courtès (2015-11-20 01:32 +0300) wrote:
>
>> -# Load the system profile's settings.
>> +if [ -x /run/current-system/profile/bin/guix ]
>> +then
>> +  # Crucial variables such as 'MANPATH' or 'INFOPATH' may be missing from the
>> +  # profiles' individual 'etc/profile'.  Thus, combine both profiles when
>> +  # computing the search paths.
>> +  #
>> +  # This may take a few hundred milliseconds, but it's OK because this is
>> +  # performed for log-in shells only.
>> +  eval `/run/current-system/profile/bin/guix package \\
>> +          -p /run/current-system/profile             \\
>> +          -p \"$HOME/.guix-profile\" --search-paths`
>
> Sorry, but it's not OK for me.  As a user, I'm *strongly* against
> running 'guix' (or any other program) in /etc/profile.

Why? (Honest question.)

Toggle quote (2 lines)

> I would really like to have an option to avoid this. Is it possible?

Not that I know of. Please read http://bugs.gnu.org/20255.

Ludo’.

Alex Kost wrote on 21 Nov 2015 19:41

Recipients:(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)(address . 20255@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:874mgfkxee.fsf@gmail.com

Ludovic Courtès (2015-11-21 11:57 +0300) wrote:

Toggle quote (22 lines)> Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès (2015-11-20 01:32 +0300) wrote:
>>
>>> -# Load the system profile's settings.
>>> +if [ -x /run/current-system/profile/bin/guix ]
>>> +then
>>> +  # Crucial variables such as 'MANPATH' or 'INFOPATH' may be missing from the
>>> +  # profiles' individual 'etc/profile'.  Thus, combine both profiles when
>>> +  # computing the search paths.
>>> +  #
>>> +  # This may take a few hundred milliseconds, but it's OK because this is
>>> +  # performed for log-in shells only.
>>> +  eval `/run/current-system/profile/bin/guix package \\
>>> +          -p /run/current-system/profile             \\
>>> +          -p \"$HOME/.guix-profile\" --search-paths`
>>
>> Sorry, but it's not OK for me.  As a user, I'm *strongly* against
>> running 'guix' (or any other program) in /etc/profile.
>
> Why?  (Honest question.)

At first, because of the slowdown: it may be a few hundred milliseconds

for you, but it's several seconds for me. But actually, even if it was

several milliseconds, I still wouldn't like it, as (IMHO) /etc/profile

should only set variables, and not run external programs.

Toggle quote (4 lines)

>> I would really like to have an option to avoid this. Is it possible?

> Not that I know of. Please read <http://bugs.gnu.org/20255>.

What about making some environment variable which will be honored by

'operating-system-etc-service' procedure. So depending on this variable

that 'eval ...' command will or will not be added to "/etc/profile"

during 'guix system ...' process.

For example, when I do:

GUIX_IGNORE_SYSTEM_PROFILE_ENV=1 guix system build my-config.scm

the "etc/profile" of the built system will not contain those 'eval ...'

lines. WDYT?

Alex

Ludovic Courtès wrote on 21 Nov 2015 21:10

Recipients:(name . Alex Kost)(address . alezost@gmail.com)(address . 20255@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:87wptb5d1y.fsf@gnu.org

Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:

Toggle quote (27 lines)> Ludovic Courtès (2015-11-21 11:57 +0300) wrote:
>
>> Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:
>>
>>> Ludovic Courtès (2015-11-20 01:32 +0300) wrote:
>>>
>>>> -# Load the system profile's settings.
>>>> +if [ -x /run/current-system/profile/bin/guix ]
>>>> +then
>>>> +  # Crucial variables such as 'MANPATH' or 'INFOPATH' may be missing from the
>>>> +  # profiles' individual 'etc/profile'.  Thus, combine both profiles when
>>>> +  # computing the search paths.
>>>> +  #
>>>> +  # This may take a few hundred milliseconds, but it's OK because this is
>>>> +  # performed for log-in shells only.
>>>> +  eval `/run/current-system/profile/bin/guix package \\
>>>> +          -p /run/current-system/profile             \\
>>>> +          -p \"$HOME/.guix-profile\" --search-paths`
>>>
>>> Sorry, but it's not OK for me.  As a user, I'm *strongly* against
>>> running 'guix' (or any other program) in /etc/profile.
>>
>> Why?  (Honest question.)
>
> At first, because of the slowdown: it may be a few hundred milliseconds
> for you, but it's several seconds for me.

Really? Can you show the output of:

time guix package -p /run/current-system/profile \

-p ~/.guix-profile --search-paths

Toggle quote (4 lines)

> But actually, even if it was several milliseconds, I still wouldn't

> like it, as (IMHO) /etc/profile should only set variables, and not run

> external programs.

I don’t buy this “principle”: /etc/profile is a program, and the output

of --search-paths is trusted to contain only environment variable

setting.

In the discussion of this bug, we tried hard to avoid resorting to

invoking a program, but ultimately no other solution came out.

Toggle quote (16 lines)>>> I would really like to have an option to avoid this.  Is it possible?
>>
>> Not that I know of.  Please read <http://bugs.gnu.org/20255>.
>
> What about making some environment variable which will be honored by
> 'operating-system-etc-service' procedure.  So depending on this variable
> that 'eval ...' command will or will not be added to "/etc/profile"
> during 'guix system ...' process.
>
> For example, when I do:
>
>   GUIX_IGNORE_SYSTEM_PROFILE_ENV=1 guix system build my-config.scm
>
> the "etc/profile" of the built system will not contain those 'eval ...'
> lines.  WDYT?

This would be unreasonable.  We’re talking about a basic feature here.
If basic features are broken to the point that we prefer to offer ways
to bypass them, and have a semi-broken system, then there’s a problem,
IMO.

Ludo’.

Alex Kost wrote on 22 Nov 2015 08:52

Recipients:(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)(address . 20255@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:87r3jisc76.fsf@gmail.com

Ludovic Courtès (2015-11-21 23:10 +0300) wrote:

Toggle quote (34 lines)> Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès (2015-11-21 11:57 +0300) wrote:
>>
>>> Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:
>>>
>>>> Ludovic Courtès (2015-11-20 01:32 +0300) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> -# Load the system profile's settings.
>>>>> +if [ -x /run/current-system/profile/bin/guix ]
>>>>> +then
>>>>> +  # Crucial variables such as 'MANPATH' or 'INFOPATH' may be missing from the
>>>>> +  # profiles' individual 'etc/profile'.  Thus, combine both profiles when
>>>>> +  # computing the search paths.
>>>>> +  #
>>>>> +  # This may take a few hundred milliseconds, but it's OK because this is
>>>>> +  # performed for log-in shells only.
>>>>> +  eval `/run/current-system/profile/bin/guix package \\
>>>>> +          -p /run/current-system/profile             \\
>>>>> +          -p \"$HOME/.guix-profile\" --search-paths`
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but it's not OK for me.  As a user, I'm *strongly* against
>>>> running 'guix' (or any other program) in /etc/profile.
>>>
>>> Why?  (Honest question.)
>>
>> At first, because of the slowdown: it may be a few hundred milliseconds
>> for you, but it's several seconds for me.
>
> Really?  Can you show the output of:
>
>   time guix package -p /run/current-system/profile \
>                     -p ~/.guix-profile --search-paths

real 0m2.634s

user 0m0.568s

sys 0m0.080s

Of course, on the second run the real time reduces (for me it's about

0.5), as HDD already "knows" what I want, but since it is for login

shell, it will always be 2-3 seconds because of HDD.

Toggle quote (8 lines)

>> But actually, even if it was several milliseconds, I still wouldn't

>> like it, as (IMHO) /etc/profile should only set variables, and not run

>> external programs.

> I don’t buy this “principle”: /etc/profile is a program, and the output

> of --search-paths is trusted to contain only environment variable

> setting.

Sure, it's just my opinion (OK, let call it "faith"): I consider running

external programs in "/etc/profile" malicious.

Toggle quote (3 lines)

> In the discussion of this bug, we tried hard to avoid resorting to

> invoking a program, but ultimately no other solution came out.

I don't need a solution for this bug, I just want to have an option to

avoid invoking "guix package --search-paths" in my "/etc/profile".

Toggle quote (21 lines)>>>> I would really like to have an option to avoid this.  Is it possible?
>>>
>>> Not that I know of.  Please read <http://bugs.gnu.org/20255>.
>>
>> What about making some environment variable which will be honored by
>> 'operating-system-etc-service' procedure.  So depending on this variable
>> that 'eval ...' command will or will not be added to "/etc/profile"
>> during 'guix system ...' process.
>>
>> For example, when I do:
>>
>>   GUIX_IGNORE_SYSTEM_PROFILE_ENV=1 guix system build my-config.scm
>>
>> the "etc/profile" of the built system will not contain those 'eval ...'
>> lines.  WDYT?
>
> This would be unreasonable.  We’re talking about a basic feature here.
> If basic features are broken to the point that we prefer to offer ways
> to bypass them, and have a semi-broken system, then there’s a problem,
> IMO.

Sorry, but I would really like to bypass this feature, as I don't like
it.  For me, what you suggest sounds: «We'll not give a freedom to a
user to disable this feature, because we know better what is good for
him/her».  All I ask is to give me such a freedom.

Using --search-paths with several profiles is a great feature (thank you
for it!) and I like it, but consider the following use-case: for some
reason I like to manage several profiles instead of a single
"~/.guix-profile", so I can put:

eval `guix package -p /run/current-system/profile \
                   -p ~/.guix-profile \
                   -p ~/my-guix-profiles/foo \
                   -p ~/my-guix-profiles/bar \
                   --search-paths`

in my "~/.bash_profile".  So I don't like to have the same command but
only for 2 profiles in my "/etc/profile".  Please, give me an option to
disable this feature.

-- 
Alex

Ludovic Courtès wrote on 22 Nov 2015 11:52

Recipients:(name . Alex Kost)(address . alezost@gmail.com)(address . 20255@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:87lh9q1f2i.fsf@gnu.org

Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:

Toggle quote (12 lines)>>> At first, because of the slowdown: it may be a few hundred milliseconds
>>> for you, but it's several seconds for me.
>>
>> Really?  Can you show the output of:
>>
>>   time guix package -p /run/current-system/profile \
>>                     -p ~/.guix-profile --search-paths
>
> real	0m2.634s
> user	0m0.568s
> sys	0m0.080s

Ouch, that’s a problem. This suggests that this is 2 seconds of I/O.

I’m not sure what can be done to improve that.

Toggle quote (6 lines)

>> In the discussion of this bug, we tried hard to avoid resorting to

>> invoking a program, but ultimately no other solution came out.

> I don't need a solution for this bug, I just want to have an option to

> avoid invoking "guix package --search-paths" in my "/etc/profile".

Are you denying that this is a bug? Are you denying that there’s a

usability issue at hand?

To me, what 宋文武 reported at the beginning of this thread is a

usability issue. We’ve hacked around it so far, but we know there are

cases where the hacks aren’t enough.

We could declare it as “won’t fix”, but I’m not comfortable with that.

Toggle quote (14 lines)>>> For example, when I do:
>>>
>>>   GUIX_IGNORE_SYSTEM_PROFILE_ENV=1 guix system build my-config.scm
>>>
>>> the "etc/profile" of the built system will not contain those 'eval ...'
>>> lines.  WDYT?
>>
>> This would be unreasonable.  We’re talking about a basic feature here.
>> If basic features are broken to the point that we prefer to offer ways
>> to bypass them, and have a semi-broken system, then there’s a problem,
>> IMO.
>
> Sorry, but I would really like to bypass this feature

[...]

I very well understand your concern, so thanks for chiming in.

Please let’s also consider the bug at hand.

The solution I came up with might be inadequate. Then we need to come

up with an alternate proposal, or to resign and mark it as “wontfix.”

What would you suggest?

Thanks,

Ludo’.

Alex Kost wrote on 22 Nov 2015 19:44

Recipients:(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)(address . 20255@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:877fl9q3gv.fsf@gmail.com

Ludovic Courtès (2015-11-22 13:52 +0300) wrote:

Toggle quote (26 lines)> Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:
>
>>>> At first, because of the slowdown: it may be a few hundred milliseconds
>>>> for you, but it's several seconds for me.
>>>
>>> Really?  Can you show the output of:
>>>
>>>   time guix package -p /run/current-system/profile \
>>>                     -p ~/.guix-profile --search-paths
>>
>> real	0m2.634s
>> user	0m0.568s
>> sys	0m0.080s
>
> Ouch, that’s a problem.  This suggests that this is 2 seconds of I/O.
> I’m not sure what can be done to improve that.
>
>>> In the discussion of this bug, we tried hard to avoid resorting to
>>> invoking a program, but ultimately no other solution came out.
>>
>> I don't need a solution for this bug, I just want to have an option to
>> avoid invoking "guix package --search-paths" in my "/etc/profile".
>
> Are you denying that this is a bug?  Are you denying that there’s a
> usability issue at hand?

I agree it's a usability issue.

Toggle quote (6 lines)

> To me, what 宋文武 reported at the beginning of this thread is a

> usability issue. We’ve hacked around it so far, but we know there are

> cases where the hacks aren’t enough.

> We could declare it as “won’t fix”, but I’m not comfortable with that.

No, no, I'm against “won't fix”. I don't mind if it's called a bug, and

a solution you suggest is the best, but it suits only the default case

of a single user profile. If I have several user profiles, it does

nothing useful for me, only wastes the time.

Toggle quote (19 lines)>>>> For example, when I do:
>>>>
>>>>   GUIX_IGNORE_SYSTEM_PROFILE_ENV=1 guix system build my-config.scm
>>>>
>>>> the "etc/profile" of the built system will not contain those 'eval ...'
>>>> lines.  WDYT?
>>>
>>> This would be unreasonable.  We’re talking about a basic feature here.
>>> If basic features are broken to the point that we prefer to offer ways
>>> to bypass them, and have a semi-broken system, then there’s a problem,
>>> IMO.
>>
>> Sorry, but I would really like to bypass this feature
>
> [...]
>
> I very well understand your concern, so thanks for chiming in.
> Please let’s also consider the bug at hand.

OK, for the bug at hand, invoking "guix package --search-paths" looks

like the only possible solution, but please don't commit this patch

without giving a user a chance to decide what to put in /etc/profile.

Toggle quote (3 lines)

> The solution I came up with might be inadequate. Then we need to come

> up with an alternate proposal, or to resign and mark it as “wontfix.”

It is adequate and I'm not against it.

Toggle quote (2 lines)

> What would you suggest?

After all, I realized what is my main concern: "/etc/profile" is
non-editable.  If I don't like some pieces of this file, I can do
nothing, and I just have to live with it and suffer.  Ideally I would
like to decide what pieces I want to put in /etc/profile and what I
don't.  But it's probably not possible, so…

… what I suggest now is just to give an option to avoid generating the
default /etc/profile.  What about making an 'operating-system' field for
this file (similar to 'sudoers-file' or 'hosts-file')?  So when such
'profile-file' is specified, it will be used instead of the default one
(of course, it should be mentioned in the manual that it's only for
those users who are sure what they do).

If this 'profile-file' field appears, I will gladly use it, and I will
not object to any future changes in /etc/profile.

-- 
Alex

Ludovic Courtès wrote on 23 Nov 2015 00:04

Recipients:(name . Alex Kost)(address . alezost@gmail.com)(address . 20255@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:87h9kdy6ty.fsf@gnu.org

Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:

Toggle quote (2 lines)

> Ludovic Courtès (2015-11-22 13:52 +0300) wrote:

[...]

Toggle quote (9 lines)

>> To me, what 宋文武 reported at the beginning of this thread is a

>> usability issue. We’ve hacked around it so far, but we know there are

>> cases where the hacks aren’t enough.

>> We could declare it as “won’t fix”, but I’m not comfortable with that.

> No, no, I'm against “won't fix”. I don't mind if it's called a bug, and

> a solution you suggest is the best,

OK.

Toggle quote (4 lines)

> but it suits only the default case of a single user profile. If I

> have several user profiles, it does nothing useful for me, only wastes

> the time.

I think this is fine. ~/.guix-profile is treated specially in many

ways. I think users do not expect other profiles to be magically taken

into account.

Toggle quote (4 lines)

> OK, for the bug at hand, invoking "guix package --search-paths" looks

> like the only possible solution, but please don't commit this patch

> without giving a user a chance to decide what to put in /etc/profile.

OK.

Toggle quote (5 lines)

>> The solution I came up with might be inadequate. Then we need to come

>> up with an alternate proposal, or to resign and mark it as “wontfix.”

> It is adequate and I'm not against it.

OK. To me, that it takes 2 seconds on your machines suggests that it’s

not great either.

Toggle quote (15 lines)>> What would you suggest?
>
> After all, I realized what is my main concern: "/etc/profile" is
> non-editable.  If I don't like some pieces of this file, I can do
> nothing, and I just have to live with it and suffer.  Ideally I would
> like to decide what pieces I want to put in /etc/profile and what I
> don't.  But it's probably not possible, so…
>
> … what I suggest now is just to give an option to avoid generating the
> default /etc/profile.  What about making an 'operating-system' field for
> this file (similar to 'sudoers-file' or 'hosts-file')?  So when such
> 'profile-file' is specified, it will be used instead of the default one
> (of course, it should be mentioned in the manual that it's only for
> those users who are sure what they do).

I think we could make an /etc/profile-service that receives snippets

meant to be glued together into the final /etc/profile. Users could

specify the top or bottom of the file.

There could be a combined-search-paths-service that implements the

solution I proposed here.

WDYT?

Toggle quote (3 lines)

> If this 'profile-file' field appears, I will gladly use it, and I will

> not object to any future changes in /etc/profile.

Of course we want to offer this flexibility.  But I think it’s also
important to discuss the defaults, to make sure they are acceptable to
many and that they improve the “user experience.”

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Alex Kost wrote on 23 Nov 2015 12:55

Recipients:(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)(address . 20255@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:871tbh53rt.fsf@gmail.com

Ludovic Courtès (2015-11-23 02:04 +0300) wrote:

Toggle quote (14 lines)> Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès (2015-11-22 13:52 +0300) wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> but it suits only the default case of a single user profile.  If I
>> have several user profiles, it does nothing useful for me, only wastes
>> the time.
>
> I think this is fine.  ~/.guix-profile is treated specially in many
> ways.  I think users do not expect other profiles to be magically taken
> into account.

Yes, this is a good default option, all I wanted to say is if I don't

use Guix in a default way, I would like to change this default option to

suit my needs.

Toggle quote (24 lines)>>> What would you suggest?
>>
>> After all, I realized what is my main concern: "/etc/profile" is
>> non-editable.  If I don't like some pieces of this file, I can do
>> nothing, and I just have to live with it and suffer.  Ideally I would
>> like to decide what pieces I want to put in /etc/profile and what I
>> don't.  But it's probably not possible, so…
>>
>> … what I suggest now is just to give an option to avoid generating the
>> default /etc/profile.  What about making an 'operating-system' field for
>> this file (similar to 'sudoers-file' or 'hosts-file')?  So when such
>> 'profile-file' is specified, it will be used instead of the default one
>> (of course, it should be mentioned in the manual that it's only for
>> those users who are sure what they do).
>
> I think we could make an /etc/profile-service that receives snippets
> meant to be glued together into the final /etc/profile.  Users could
> specify the top or bottom of the file.
>
> There could be a combined-search-paths-service that implements the
> solution I proposed here.
>
> WDYT?

I agree, the more ways to change a default behaviour, the better.

Although I will not use these things if there will be ‘profile-file’

field that allows to specify my own "/etc/profile".

Toggle quote (5 lines)

>> If this 'profile-file' field appears, I will gladly use it, and I will

>> not object to any future changes in /etc/profile.

> Of course we want to offer this flexibility.

Great! So is it OK to send a patch for adding ‘profile-file’ field?

Toggle quote (4 lines)

> But I think it’s also

> important to discuss the defaults, to make sure they are acceptable to

> many and that they improve the “user experience.”

I'm probably not the person to discuss the defaults, as very often I
find defaults inappropriate.  For example, invoking "guix package
--search-paths" in /etc/profile is a totally unacceptable default for
me (sorry for mentioning it all the time :-))

-- 
Alex

Ludovic Courtès wrote on 23 Nov 2015 15:31

Recipients:(name . Alex Kost)(address . alezost@gmail.com)(address . 20255@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:87vb8sss7j.fsf@gnu.org

Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:

Toggle quote (20 lines)> Ludovic Courtès (2015-11-23 02:04 +0300) wrote:
>
>> Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:
>>
>>> Ludovic Courtès (2015-11-22 13:52 +0300) wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> but it suits only the default case of a single user profile.  If I
>>> have several user profiles, it does nothing useful for me, only wastes
>>> the time.
>>
>> I think this is fine.  ~/.guix-profile is treated specially in many
>> ways.  I think users do not expect other profiles to be magically taken
>> into account.
>
> Yes, this is a good default option, all I wanted to say is if I don't
> use Guix in a default way, I would like to change this default option to
> suit my needs.

IMO this is beyond the scope of this discussion: /etc/profile already

sources ~/.guix-profile/etc/profile explicitly, and not anything else.

[...]

Toggle quote (20 lines)>>> … what I suggest now is just to give an option to avoid generating the
>>> default /etc/profile.  What about making an 'operating-system' field for
>>> this file (similar to 'sudoers-file' or 'hosts-file')?  So when such
>>> 'profile-file' is specified, it will be used instead of the default one
>>> (of course, it should be mentioned in the manual that it's only for
>>> those users who are sure what they do).
>>
>> I think we could make an /etc/profile-service that receives snippets
>> meant to be glued together into the final /etc/profile.  Users could
>> specify the top or bottom of the file.
>>
>> There could be a combined-search-paths-service that implements the
>> solution I proposed here.
>>
>> WDYT?
>
> I agree, the more ways to change a default behaviour, the better.
> Although I will not use these things if there will be ‘profile-file’
> field that allows to specify my own "/etc/profile".

[...]

Toggle quote (2 lines)

> Great! So is it OK to send a patch for adding ‘profile-file’ field?

Hmm, I’m not sure if we want to give direct access to /etc/profile like

this.

The problem is that several things in there are here to make the system

work, and to to make it conform to the ‘operating-system’ declaration,

such as:

Toggle snippet (8 lines)

export LANG="en_US.utf8"

export TZ="Europe/Paris"

export TZDIR="/gnu/store/rwvf6xqgsyb8bmpi7rwk9fildnwvzrv5-tzdata-2015c/share/zoneinfo"

# Tell 'modprobe' & co. where to look for modules.

export LINUX_MODULE_DIRECTORY=/run/booted-system/kernel/lib/modules

The risk I see with adding a raw ‘profile-file’ option is that newcomers

may end up getting rid of such things without really noticing, and then

getting a broken system.

What about instead giving a way to populate the top and/or bottom of

this file? Controversial parts, if any, could still be turned on and

off by adding or removing services that add these lines?

I think we should open a separate bug report to discuss this.

Toggle quote (7 lines)

>> But I think it’s also

>> important to discuss the defaults, to make sure they are acceptable to

>> many and that they improve the “user experience.”

> I'm probably not the person to discuss the defaults, as very often I

> find defaults inappropriate.

Understood.  I’m sure you’ll understand, though, that it’s in the
interest of the project and its users to provide a good user experience
firsthand.

Thanks for your feedback,
Ludo’.

Ludovic Courtès wrote on 24 Nov 2015 18:22

Recipients:(name . Alex Kost)(address . alezost@gmail.com)(address . 20255@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:877fl7cnxl.fsf@gnu.org

Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:

Toggle quote (2 lines)

> Ludovic Courtès (2015-11-21 23:10 +0300) wrote:

[...]

Toggle quote (9 lines)

>> Really? Can you show the output of:

>> time guix package -p /run/current-system/profile \

>> -p ~/.guix-profile --search-paths

> real 0m2.634s

> user 0m0.568s

> sys 0m0.080s

Could you measure again after cc3de1d?

As it turns out, ‘guix package’ loads way too much and also stats too

much, at least for simple operations like --search-paths.

Thanks,

Ludo’.

Alex Kost wrote on 30 Nov 2015 10:08

Recipients:(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)(address . 20255@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:874mg3dfbo.fsf@gmail.com

Ludovic Courtès (2015-11-24 20:22 +0300) wrote:

Toggle quote (20 lines)> Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès (2015-11-21 23:10 +0300) wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> Really?  Can you show the output of:
>>>
>>>   time guix package -p /run/current-system/profile \
>>>                     -p ~/.guix-profile --search-paths
>>
>> real	0m2.634s
>> user	0m0.568s
>> sys	0m0.080s
>
> Could you measure again after cc3de1d?
>
> As it turns out, ‘guix package’ loads way too much and also stats too
> much, at least for simple operations like --search-paths.

real 0m1.122s

user 0m0.244s

sys 0m0.044s

I measured it several times with a "cold" HDD (I mean when appropriate

files were not cached), and the real time was always 1.0—1.3s. Big

improvement! Thank you very much for this, autoloads are great!

Alex

Ludovic Courtès wrote on 30 Nov 2015 13:25

Recipients:(name . Alex Kost)(address . alezost@gmail.com)(address . 20255@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:87r3j7d68z.fsf@gnu.org

Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:

Toggle quote (30 lines)> Ludovic Courtès (2015-11-24 20:22 +0300) wrote:
>
>> Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:
>>
>>> Ludovic Courtès (2015-11-21 23:10 +0300) wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> Really?  Can you show the output of:
>>>>
>>>>   time guix package -p /run/current-system/profile \
>>>>                     -p ~/.guix-profile --search-paths
>>>
>>> real	0m2.634s
>>> user	0m0.568s
>>> sys	0m0.080s
>>
>> Could you measure again after cc3de1d?
>>
>> As it turns out, ‘guix package’ loads way too much and also stats too
>> much, at least for simple operations like --search-paths.
>
> real	0m1.122s
> user	0m0.244s
> sys	0m0.044s
>
> I measured it several times with a "cold" HDD (I mean when appropriate
> files were not cached), and the real time was always 1.0—1.3s.  Big
> improvement!  Thank you very much for this, autoloads are great!

Great, thanks for testing! That’s still too much to my state, but it’s

already an improvement.

Ludo’.

Ludovic Courtès wrote on 19 Dec 2015 18:23

control message for bug #20255

Recipients:(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:8737uyz71l.fsf@gnu.org

tags 20255 patch

zimoun wrote on 21 Feb 2020 16:53

(old)bug#20255: 'search-paths' should respect both user and system profiles

Recipients:(address . 20255@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:CAJ3okZ3pg6q=Z29tfuDtdCwRrC6FYbFma_qAtAb2mVw4CTMW3A@mail.gmail.com

Dear,

What is the status of the bug#20255 [1]?

It is old; the last activity seems back on 2015, November. So let resume.

The issue is, e.g.:

- perl installed into the system profile

- perl-xml-parser installed into an user profile

Then "guix package --search-paths" does not set correctly XML::Parser.

Fixes had been pushed: dedb17a and b2a7223 and cc3de1d.

The final fix is still missing. Because it is a controversial patch

[2] :-) i.e., running 'guix' in '/etc/profile'; see these lines of the

patch:

Toggle snippet (6 lines)

+ eval `/run/current-system/profile/bin/guix package \\

+ -p /run/current-system/profile \\

+ -p \"$HOME/.guix-profile\" --search-paths`

The friendly "protest" [3] is about turning these lines optional via

an environment variable. I am not sure to follow where the discussion

had been going then.

Well, is the issue still happening 4 years later?

If yes, what should be the fix? What is the status quo?

If no, let close the bug.

Note that other patches are still pending [4] and [5] -- probably

irrelevant now.

All the best,

simon

[1] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=20255

[2] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=20255#41

[3] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=20255#44

[4] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=20255#8

[5] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=20255#26

Alex Kost wrote on 21 Feb 2020 18:18

Recipients:(name . zimoun)(address . zimon.toutoune@gmail.com)

Message-ID:87eeun97ur.fsf@gmail.com

zimoun (2020-02-21 16:53 +0100) wrote:

Toggle quote (26 lines)> Dear,
>
> What is the status of the bug#20255 [1]?
> It is old; the last activity seems back on 2015, November. So let resume.
>
> The issue is, e.g.:
>  - perl installed into the system profile
>  - perl-xml-parser installed into an user profile
> Then "guix package --search-paths" does not set correctly XML::Parser.
>
>
> Fixes had been pushed: dedb17a and b2a7223 and cc3de1d.
>
> The final fix is still missing. Because it is a controversial patch
> [2] :-) i.e., running 'guix' in '/etc/profile'; see these lines of the
> patch:
>
> +  eval `/run/current-system/profile/bin/guix package \\
> +          -p /run/current-system/profile             \\
> +          -p \"$HOME/.guix-profile\" --search-paths`
>
>
> The friendly "protest" [3] is about turning these lines optional via
> an environment variable. I am not sure to follow where the discussion
> had been going then.

As for me, I am OK with any default setting as long as there is a way to
change it.  I recall Ludovic proposed a patch that allowed to customize
"/etc/profile" and I was happy about it, but he changed his mind on that
patch so it was never committed.

-- 
Alex

zimoun wrote on 18 Dec 2020 21:27

bug#20255: «the Oldest» [PATCH] 'search-paths' should respect both user and system profiles

Recipients:

Message-ID:86v9cyuaev.fsf_-_@gmail.com

Hi,

The bug#20255 [#] is the oldest patch, still there even if almost is

done. Let enjoy this patch squash day on Dec. the 18th [0] to close

it. ;-)

Below the summary I wrote couple of months ago. And the Alex’s answer:

As for me, I am OK with any default setting as long as there is a way to

change it. I recall Ludovic proposed a patch that allowed to customize

"/etc/profile" and I was happy about it, but he changed his mind on that

patch so it was never committed.

Let’s tackle it! :-)

0: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2020-12/msg00215.html

All the best,

simon

#: http://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/20255

On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 16:53, zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> wrote:

Toggle quote (39 lines)> What is the status of the bug#20255 [1]?
> It is old; the last activity seems back on 2015, November. So let resume.
>
> The issue is, e.g.:
>  - perl installed into the system profile
>  - perl-xml-parser installed into an user profile
> Then "guix package --search-paths" does not set correctly XML::Parser.
>
> Fixes had been pushed: dedb17a and b2a7223 and cc3de1d.
>
> The final fix is still missing. Because it is a controversial patch
> [2] :-) i.e., running 'guix' in '/etc/profile'; see these lines of the
> patch:
>
> +  eval `/run/current-system/profile/bin/guix package \\
> +          -p /run/current-system/profile             \\
> +          -p \"$HOME/.guix-profile\" --search-paths`
>
>
> The friendly "protest" [3] is about turning these lines optional via
> an environment variable. I am not sure to follow where the discussion
> had been going then.
>
> Well, is the issue still happening 4 years later?
> If yes, what should be the fix? What is the status quo?
> If no, let close the bug.
>
> Note that other patches are still pending [4] and [5] -- probably
> irrelevant now.
>
> All the best,
> simon
>
>
> [1] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=20255
> [2] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=20255#41
> [3] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=20255#44
> [4] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=20255#8
> [5] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=20255#26

Maxim Cournoyer wrote on 26 Jun 2021 04:37

Re: bug#20255: 'search-paths' should respect both user and system profile.

Recipients:(name . Alex Kost)(address . alezost@gmail.com)

Message-ID:874kdlxsfl.fsf_-_@gmail.com

Hello,

Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> writes:

Toggle quote (33 lines)> zimoun (2020-02-21 16:53 +0100) wrote:
>
>> Dear,
>>
>> What is the status of the bug#20255 [1]?
>> It is old; the last activity seems back on 2015, November. So let resume.
>>
>> The issue is, e.g.:
>>  - perl installed into the system profile
>>  - perl-xml-parser installed into an user profile
>> Then "guix package --search-paths" does not set correctly XML::Parser.
>>
>>
>> Fixes had been pushed: dedb17a and b2a7223 and cc3de1d.
>>
>> The final fix is still missing. Because it is a controversial patch
>> [2] :-) i.e., running 'guix' in '/etc/profile'; see these lines of the
>> patch:
>>
>> +  eval `/run/current-system/profile/bin/guix package \\
>> +          -p /run/current-system/profile             \\
>> +          -p \"$HOME/.guix-profile\" --search-paths`
>>
>>
>> The friendly "protest" [3] is about turning these lines optional via
>> an environment variable. I am not sure to follow where the discussion
>> had been going then.
>
> As for me, I am OK with any default setting as long as there is a way to
> change it.  I recall Ludovic proposed a patch that allowed to customize
> "/etc/profile" and I was happy about it, but he changed his mind on that
> patch so it was never committed.

Do you still have a vetted interest in the issue at hand?  This is a
serious usability problem that's been in limbo for 6 years, apparently
for reasons of purity (not wanting to run a command in /etc/profile).
While I share the sentiment that /etc/profile would better be 'inert' or
static, it seems we haven't been able to come up with a better solution
than calling 'guix package --search-paths'.  Like Ludovic, I also don't
find the idea of allowing users to override /etc/profile very appealing;
even if undocumented, its mere presence in the operating-system field
would be an invitation for problems.  An environment variable to disable
such basic functionality also seems backward to me.

I would personally be in favor of committing the fix as-is.  If < 1 s of
wasted time on boot is an issue, I suggest to look into GNU Shepherd to
offset it; optimization opportunities should abound :-).

Thank you,

Maxim

Leo Prikler wrote on 26 Jun 2021 07:59

Recipients:

Message-ID:5f385b99827c7c069094e1ed0fb2bd52f5345445.camel@student.tugraz.at

Am Freitag, den 25.06.2021, 22:37 -0400 schrieb Maxim Cournoyer:

Toggle quote (68 lines)> Hello,
> 
> Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > zimoun (2020-02-21 16:53 +0100) wrote:
> > 
> > > Dear,
> > > 
> > > What is the status of the bug#20255 [1]?
> > > It is old; the last activity seems back on 2015, November. So let
> > > resume.
> > > 
> > > The issue is, e.g.:
> > >  - perl installed into the system profile
> > >  - perl-xml-parser installed into an user profile
> > > Then "guix package --search-paths" does not set correctly
> > > XML::Parser.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Fixes had been pushed: dedb17a and b2a7223 and cc3de1d.
> > > 
> > > The final fix is still missing. Because it is a controversial
> > > patch
> > > [2] :-) i.e., running 'guix' in '/etc/profile'; see these lines
> > > of the
> > > patch:
> > > 
> > > +  eval `/run/current-system/profile/bin/guix package \\
> > > +          -p /run/current-system/profile             \\
> > > +          -p \"$HOME/.guix-profile\" --search-paths`
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The friendly "protest" [3] is about turning these lines optional
> > > via
> > > an environment variable. I am not sure to follow where the
> > > discussion
> > > had been going then.
> > 
> > As for me, I am OK with any default setting as long as there is a
> > way to
> > change it.  I recall Ludovic proposed a patch that allowed to
> > customize
> > "/etc/profile" and I was happy about it, but he changed his mind on
> > that
> > patch so it was never committed.
> 
> Do you still have a vetted interest in the issue at hand?  This is a
> serious usability problem that's been in limbo for 6 years,
> apparently
> for reasons of purity (not wanting to run a command in /etc/profile).
> While I share the sentiment that /etc/profile would better be 'inert'
> or
> static, it seems we haven't been able to come up with a better
> solution
> than calling 'guix package --search-paths'.  Like Ludovic, I also
> don't
> find the idea of allowing users to override /etc/profile very
> appealing;
> even if undocumented, its mere presence in the operating-system field
> would be an invitation for problems.  An environment variable to
> disable
> such basic functionality also seems backward to me.
> 
> I would personally be in favor of committing the fix as-is.  If < 1 s
> of
> wasted time on boot is an issue, I suggest to look into GNU Shepherd
> to
> offset it; optimization opportunities should abound :-).

I think there is a solution, that works not only for the case of
disabling this unwanted feature, but also to add in support for
multiple profiles, i.e. if the user has more than just their .guix-
profile to load.

If we made this feature opt-in in that a user would first have to write
their profiles to $HOME/.config/guix/default-profiles or a similarly
named file in $HOME/.config/guix, we could simply not run the command
if the file doesn't exist, and if it exists run it using the profiles
in there.

Most users will likely have

Toggle snippet (3 lines)

/home/myself/.guix-profile

/run/current-system/profile

in it, but you could also have

Toggle snippet (7 lines)

/home/myself/.guix-extra-profiles/emacs

/home/myself/.guix-extra-profiles/hundreds-of-npm-packages

/home/myself/.guix-extra-profiles/rusty-rust

/home/myself/.guix-profile

/run/current-system/profile

Of course, having to type out /home/myself is somewhat weird, and the
last two lines are a bit of boilerplate, that one might want to avoid. 
We could alternatively make it so that an empty file means "use
$HOME/.guix-profile and /run/current-system/profile", such that those
are always sourced no matter what.  WDYT?

Regards,
Leo

Alex Kost wrote on 27 Jun 2021 11:59

Recipients:(name . Maxim Cournoyer)(address . maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com)

Message-ID:8735t3d3wf.fsf@gmail.com

Maxim Cournoyer (2021-06-25 22:37 -0400) wrote:

[...]

Toggle quote (15 lines)> Do you still have a vetted interest in the issue at hand?  This is a
> serious usability problem that's been in limbo for 6 years, apparently
> for reasons of purity (not wanting to run a command in /etc/profile).
> While I share the sentiment that /etc/profile would better be 'inert' or
> static, it seems we haven't been able to come up with a better solution
> than calling 'guix package --search-paths'.  Like Ludovic, I also don't
> find the idea of allowing users to override /etc/profile very appealing;
> even if undocumented, its mere presence in the operating-system field
> would be an invitation for problems.  An environment variable to disable
> such basic functionality also seems backward to me.
>
> I would personally be in favor of committing the fix as-is.  If < 1 s of
> wasted time on boot is an issue, I suggest to look into GNU Shepherd to
> offset it; optimization opportunities should abound :-).

I can modify /etc/profile with any "normal" linux distribution but I

cannot do it with the Guix System. And I find it awful that you think

it should stay like that. I am for providing as much freedom for a user

(to configure their system) as possible.

The current /etc/profile is bearable for me, but if you add a "guix ..."

call there without providing a way to modify that file, I will probably

stop using the Guix System.

Or maybe there is a hacky way to change /etc/profile ? If so, please

share a code how this can be done. (Then I will not complain anymore)

Alex

Maxim Cournoyer wrote on 28 Jun 2021 06:35

Recipients:(name . Leo Prikler)(address . leo.prikler@student.tugraz.at)

Message-ID:87mtrawqq8.fsf@gmail.com

Hi Leo,

[...]

Toggle quote (30 lines)> I think there is a solution, that works not only for the case of
> disabling this unwanted feature, but also to add in support for
> multiple profiles, i.e. if the user has more than just their .guix-
> profile to load.
>
> If we made this feature opt-in in that a user would first have to write
> their profiles to $HOME/.config/guix/default-profiles or a similarly
> named file in $HOME/.config/guix, we could simply not run the command
> if the file doesn't exist, and if it exists run it using the profiles
> in there.
>
> Most users will likely have
>
> /home/myself/.guix-profile
> /run/current-system/profile
>
> in it, but you could also have
>
> /home/myself/.guix-extra-profiles/emacs
> /home/myself/.guix-extra-profiles/hundreds-of-npm-packages
> /home/myself/.guix-extra-profiles/rusty-rust
> /home/myself/.guix-profile
> /run/current-system/profile
>
> Of course, having to type out /home/myself is somewhat weird, and the
> last two lines are a bit of boilerplate, that one might want to avoid. 
> We could alternatively make it so that an empty file means "use
> $HOME/.guix-profile and /run/current-system/profile", such that those
> are always sourced no matter what.  WDYT?

I like this later idea (does what a user would reasonably expect by

default, which is to consider both the system and the user profile by

default). A user specifying that file manually could then override the

default behavior to have it source extra profiles, or none at all.

Some small difference I'd propose:

An non-existing $HOME/.config/guix/default-profiles file would be

equivalent to an existing file containing:

- $HOME/.guix-profile

- /run/current-system/profile

as the default behavior.

Now we'd need to look at how feasible it is to implement such a feature.

Thanks for this clever suggestion! It seems we may be able to find a

good middle ground :-).

Maxim

Maxim Cournoyer wrote on 28 Jun 2021 06:48

Recipients:(name . Alex Kost)(address . alezost@gmail.com)

Message-ID:87im1ywq64.fsf@gmail.com

Hi Alex,

Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> writes:

Toggle quote (29 lines)> Maxim Cournoyer (2021-06-25 22:37 -0400) wrote:
>
> [...]
>> Do you still have a vetted interest in the issue at hand?  This is a
>> serious usability problem that's been in limbo for 6 years, apparently
>> for reasons of purity (not wanting to run a command in /etc/profile).
>> While I share the sentiment that /etc/profile would better be 'inert' or
>> static, it seems we haven't been able to come up with a better solution
>> than calling 'guix package --search-paths'.  Like Ludovic, I also don't
>> find the idea of allowing users to override /etc/profile very appealing;
>> even if undocumented, its mere presence in the operating-system field
>> would be an invitation for problems.  An environment variable to disable
>> such basic functionality also seems backward to me.
>>
>> I would personally be in favor of committing the fix as-is.  If < 1 s of
>> wasted time on boot is an issue, I suggest to look into GNU Shepherd to
>> offset it; optimization opportunities should abound :-).
>
> I can modify /etc/profile with any "normal" linux distribution but I
> cannot do it with the Guix System.  And I find it awful that you think
> it should stay like that.  I am for providing as much freedom for a user
> (to configure their system) as possible.
> The current /etc/profile is bearable for me, but if you add a "guix ..."
> call there without providing a way to modify that file, I will probably
> stop using the Guix System.
>
> Or maybe there is a hacky way to change /etc/profile ?  If so, please
> share a code how this can be done.  (Then I will not complain anymore)

Thanks for the reply! I just wanted to make sure the extra energy to be

spent on the search & implementation of a better solution would not be

in vain; now I that know that it won't!

I like the idea proposed by Leo Prikler; the one about giving the

possibility to users to override the list of default profiles considered

under a file such as ~/.config/guix/default-profiles.

The default would be to load both combine the environment variables of

the system and user profiles using 'guix package --search-paths', but a

user could opt-out of that by providing an empty file, or customize the

list of profiles the way they'd like.

Would that be an acceptable solution from your point of view?

Thank you,

Maxim

Leo Prikler wrote on 28 Jun 2021 08:58

Recipients:(name . Maxim Cournoyer)(address . maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com)

Message-ID:ee5f723a79e54535ef3eba5f6efb9694235ecd5c.camel@student.tugraz.at

Am Montag, den 28.06.2021, 00:35 -0400 schrieb Maxim Cournoyer:

Toggle quote (56 lines)> Hi Leo,
> 
> [...]
> 
> > I think there is a solution, that works not only for the case of
> > disabling this unwanted feature, but also to add in support for
> > multiple profiles, i.e. if the user has more than just their .guix-
> > profile to load.
> > 
> > If we made this feature opt-in in that a user would first have to
> > write
> > their profiles to $HOME/.config/guix/default-profiles or a
> > similarly
> > named file in $HOME/.config/guix, we could simply not run the
> > command
> > if the file doesn't exist, and if it exists run it using the
> > profiles
> > in there.
> > 
> > Most users will likely have
> > 
> > /home/myself/.guix-profile
> > /run/current-system/profile
> > 
> > in it, but you could also have
> > 
> > /home/myself/.guix-extra-profiles/emacs
> > /home/myself/.guix-extra-profiles/hundreds-of-npm-packages
> > /home/myself/.guix-extra-profiles/rusty-rust
> > /home/myself/.guix-profile
> > /run/current-system/profile
> > 
> > Of course, having to type out /home/myself is somewhat weird, and
> > the
> > last two lines are a bit of boilerplate, that one might want to
> > avoid. 
> > We could alternatively make it so that an empty file means "use
> > $HOME/.guix-profile and /run/current-system/profile", such that
> > those
> > are always sourced no matter what.  WDYT?
> 
> I like this later idea (does what a user would reasonably expect by
> default, which is to consider both the system and the user profile by
> default).  A user specifying that file manually could then override
> the
> default behavior to have it source extra profiles, or none at all.
> 
> Some small difference I'd propose:
> 
> An non-existing $HOME/.config/guix/default-profiles file would be
> equivalent to an existing file containing:
> 
> - $HOME/.guix-profile
> - /run/current-system/profile
> 
> as the default behavior.

The behaviour for a missing default-profiles is nothing so as to

address the concerns raised by Alex Kost about running the guix binary

without the user's consent. It still runs external binaries such as

test, but IIRC those are already run in our existing setup, so that's

not really a concern worth raising.

I do agree, that your solution is more reasonable if there's nothing

else to consider.

Toggle quote (2 lines)

> Now we'd need to look at how feasible it is to implement such a

> feature.

A naïve implementation would be a pipe with sed and xargs, but I don't

know how well that'd guard against shell code exploits. A more

complicated approach might take a few lines of shell code, but I don't

think it would be excessively large.

Toggle quote (4 lines)

> Thanks for this clever suggestion! It seems we may be able to find a

> good middle ground :-).

> Maxim

Alex Kost wrote on 29 Jun 2021 19:29

Recipients:(name . Maxim Cournoyer)(address . maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com)

Message-ID:8735t0inq3.fsf@gmail.com

Maxim Cournoyer (2021-06-28 00:48 -0400) wrote:

Toggle quote (1 lines)

> Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> writes:

[...]

Toggle quote (26 lines)>> I can modify /etc/profile with any "normal" linux distribution but I
>> cannot do it with the Guix System.  And I find it awful that you think
>> it should stay like that.  I am for providing as much freedom for a user
>> (to configure their system) as possible.
>> The current /etc/profile is bearable for me, but if you add a "guix ..."
>> call there without providing a way to modify that file, I will probably
>> stop using the Guix System.
>>
>> Or maybe there is a hacky way to change /etc/profile ?  If so, please
>> share a code how this can be done.  (Then I will not complain anymore)
>
> Thanks for the reply!  I just wanted to make sure the extra energy to be
> spent on the search & implementation of a better solution would not be
> in vain; now I that know that it won't!
>
> I like the idea proposed by Leo Prikler; the one about giving the
> possibility to users to override the list of default profiles considered
> under a file such as ~/.config/guix/default-profiles.
>
> The default would be to load both combine the environment variables of
> the system and user profiles using 'guix package --search-paths', but a
> user could opt-out of that by providing an empty file, or customize the
> list of profiles the way they'd like.
>
> Would that be an acceptable solution from your point of view?

Sure! Any solution that I can configure for my needs is good for me,

thank you!

Alex

Ludovic Courtès wrote on 18 Jul 11:29 +0200

Re: [bug#56382] [PATCH] gnu: gajim: Use hicolor-icon-theme to avoid crashing on startup

Recipients:(name . Maxim Cournoyer)(address . maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com)

Message-ID:87k08a3h0s.fsf@gnu.org

Hi,

Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> skribis:

Toggle quote (19 lines)> Hi Ludovic,
>
> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> "Raghav Gururajan" <rg@raghavgururajan.name> skribis:
>>
>>>> Does simply adding ‘hicolor-icon-theme’ to ‘inputs’ fix the issue?
>>>
>>> Most gtk-based apps expect hicolor-icon-theme and adwaita-icon-theme to be in the profile. Adding these in either system or user profile would prevent this error from occurring.
>>
>> Right, so the proposed patch (adding ‘hicolor-icon-theme’ to ‘inputs’,
>> not ‘propagated-inputs’) shouldn’t make any difference I guess?
>
> I think it works as inputs because of our wrappers (perhaps
> XDG_DATA_DIRS)?  But it's kind at odds with our policy which is to let
> users manage icons themselves.

Yeah.

Toggle quote (5 lines)

> Probably because of #20255 that wouldn't help currently (system and user

> profiles are not merged), but if we fixed that bug we could make the

> situation better by adding 'hicolor-icon-theme' to the default packages

> of our desktop system templates.

Right.

BTW, the reason the solution at https://issues.guix.gnu.org/20255#12

was rejected could be revisited. Since that time, search paths made it

into the manifest itself, which brings a speed up:

Toggle snippet (13 lines)

$ sudo sh -c 'echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches '

$ time guix package -p ~/.guix-home/profile -p /run/current-system/profile --search-paths > /dev/null

real 0m0.540s

user 0m0.131s

sys 0m0.063s

$ time guix package -p ~/.guix-home/profile -p /run/current-system/profile --search-paths > /dev/null

real 0m0.135s

user 0m0.130s

sys 0m0.024s

Thoughts?

Ludo’.

Maxim Cournoyer wrote on 18 Jul 13:21 +0200

Recipients:(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)

Message-ID:87edyism2j.fsf@gmail.com

Hello!

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

[...]

Toggle quote (34 lines)>>> Right, so the proposed patch (adding ‘hicolor-icon-theme’ to ‘inputs’,
>>> not ‘propagated-inputs’) shouldn’t make any difference I guess?
>>
>> I think it works as inputs because of our wrappers (perhaps
>> XDG_DATA_DIRS)?  But it's kind at odds with our policy which is to let
>> users manage icons themselves.
>
> Yeah.
>
>> Probably because of #20255 that wouldn't help currently (system and user
>> profiles are not merged), but if we fixed that bug we could make the
>> situation better by adding 'hicolor-icon-theme' to the default packages
>> of our desktop system templates.
>
> Right.
>
> BTW, the reason the solution at <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/20255#12>
> was rejected could be revisited.  Since that time, search paths made it
> into the manifest itself, which brings a speed up:
>
> $ sudo sh -c 'echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches '
> $ time guix package -p ~/.guix-home/profile -p /run/current-system/profile --search-paths > /dev/null
>
> real    0m0.540s
> user    0m0.131s
> sys     0m0.063s
> $ time guix package -p ~/.guix-home/profile -p /run/current-system/profile --search-paths > /dev/null
>
> real    0m0.135s
> user    0m0.130s
> sys     0m0.024s
>
> Thoughts?

Re-reading the bug report, we had come up with a blueprint of a possible

solution but failed short of implementing it [0]

[0] https://issues.guix.gnu.org/20255#35

Even the --search-paths command become 0.2 s, I don't think it'll

satisfy all parties, so the solution above still has merit, I think.

Perhaps we should try to implement it, unless you see a problem with it.

Thanks,

Maxim

bokr wrote on 18 Jul 15:33 +0200

Re: bug#20255: [bug#56382] [PATCH] gnu: gajim: Use hicolor-icon-theme to avoid crashing on startup

Recipients:(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)

Message-ID:20220718133318.GA2771@LionPure

Hi Ludo,

On +2022-07-18 11:29:55 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:

Toggle quote (54 lines)> Hi,
> 
> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> skribis:
> 
> > Hi Ludovic,
> >
> > Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> "Raghav Gururajan" <rg@raghavgururajan.name> skribis:
> >>
> >>>> Does simply adding ‘hicolor-icon-theme’ to ‘inputs’ fix the issue?
> >>>
> >>> Most gtk-based apps expect hicolor-icon-theme and adwaita-icon-theme to be in the profile. Adding these in either system or user profile would prevent this error from occurring.
> >>
> >> Right, so the proposed patch (adding ‘hicolor-icon-theme’ to ‘inputs’,
> >> not ‘propagated-inputs’) shouldn’t make any difference I guess?
> >
> > I think it works as inputs because of our wrappers (perhaps
> > XDG_DATA_DIRS)?  But it's kind at odds with our policy which is to let
> > users manage icons themselves.
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> > Probably because of #20255 that wouldn't help currently (system and user
> > profiles are not merged), but if we fixed that bug we could make the
> > situation better by adding 'hicolor-icon-theme' to the default packages
> > of our desktop system templates.
> 
> Right.
> 
> BTW, the reason the solution at <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/20255#12>
> was rejected could be revisited.  Since that time, search paths made it
> into the manifest itself, which brings a speed up:
> 
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> $ sudo sh -c 'echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches '
> $ time guix package -p ~/.guix-home/profile -p /run/current-system/profile --search-paths > /dev/null
> 
> real    0m0.540s
> user    0m0.131s
> sys     0m0.063s
> $ time guix package -p ~/.guix-home/profile -p /run/current-system/profile --search-paths > /dev/null
> 
> real    0m0.135s
> user    0m0.130s
> sys     0m0.024s
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Ludo’.

I'm sure you were just after a quick indication and know what can affect timing,

but I'm curious:

What would the above results be if you did the second timing

first, after a power down and cold start?

I'm guessing the kernel file systems are pretty clever about

caching stuff, especially if you have lots of ram :)

I.e., what cached state could the first timing have left for the second to profit from?

(I've been fooled maany times, benchmarking and timing :)

Regards,

Bengt Richter

Ludovic Courtès wrote on 19 Jul 10:29 +0200

Recipients:(address . bokr@bokr.com)

Message-ID:871quhwlmg.fsf@gnu.org

Hi,

bokr@bokr.com skribis:

Toggle quote (9 lines)

> I'm sure you were just after a quick indication and know what can affect timing,

> but I'm curious:

> What would the above results be if you did the second timing

> first, after a power down and cold start?

> I'm guessing the kernel file systems are pretty clever about

> caching stuff, especially if you have lots of ram :)

The ‘drop_caches’ command is meant to drop all caches, as if I were

doing it on a cold start.

Ludo’.

is:open	open issues
is:done	closed issues
submitter:<who>	search issue submitter
author:<who>	search by message author
date:yesterday..now	search by issue date
mdate:3m..2d	search by message date