Adding filesystem utilities based on file-systems

OpenSubmitted by Leo Famulari.
Details
3 participants
  • Leo Famulari
  • Ludovic Courtès
  • Maxim Cournoyer
Owner
unassigned
Severity
normal
L
L
Leo Famulari wrote on 8 Feb 2020 01:31
(address . bug-guix@gnu.org)
20200208003122.GA31711@jasmine.lan
As discussed in #39332 [0], it would be great if filesystem utilitypackages were added to the system profile if a file-systems entry usesthat filesystem type.
For example, btrfs-progs could be added if a btrfs filesystem was listedin file-systems.
[0]https://issues.guix.info/issue/39332#3
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 10 Feb 2020 23:06
(name . Leo Famulari)(address . leo@famulari.name)(address . 39505@debbugs.gnu.org)
87r1z2gkqo.fsf@gnu.org
Hi Leo,
Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> skribis:
Toggle quote (7 lines)> As discussed in #39332 [0], it would be great if filesystem utility> packages were added to the system profile if a file-systems entry uses> that filesystem type.>> For example, btrfs-progs could be added if a btrfs filesystem was listed> in file-systems.
This could be done with something like:
Toggle diff (17 lines)diff --git a/gnu/system.scm b/gnu/system.scmindex 01baa248a2..3ff3073017 100644--- a/gnu/system.scm+++ b/gnu/system.scm@@ -203,7 +203,11 @@ (default %default-issue)) (packages operating-system-packages ; list of (PACKAGE OUTPUT...)- (default %base-packages)) ; or just PACKAGE+ (thunked) ; or just PACKAGE+ (default (append (file-system-packages+ (operating-system-file-systems+ this-operating-system))+ %base-packages))) (timezone operating-system-timezone) ; string (locale operating-system-locale ; string
However, this would only work for the default values of ‘packages’. Inother cases, users would have to add (file-system-packages …) explicitlyby themselves, which is not great.
Alternately, we could turn ‘%base-packages’ into a macro that expandsto something like:
(gimme-the-base-packages this-operating-system)
but that wouldn’t be great because now you’d be unable to refer to‘%base-packages’ like a regular variable, outside the lexical context ofan ‘operating-system’ form.
Thoughts?
Ludo’.
M
M
Maxim Cournoyer wrote on 20 Feb 2020 04:31
(name . Leo Famulari)(address . leo@famulari.name)(address . 39505@debbugs.gnu.org)
87blpu2av8.fsf@apteryx.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me
Hello Leo,
Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> writes:
Toggle quote (10 lines)> As discussed in #39332 [0], it would be great if filesystem utility> packages were added to the system profile if a file-systems entry uses> that filesystem type.>> For example, btrfs-progs could be added if a btrfs filesystem was listed> in file-systems.>> [0]> https://issues.guix.info/issue/39332#3
What is the use case? Just having btrfs utilities to manage Btrfs filesystems, or is there some problems to avoid? I know that for NFS youmust add nfs-utils so that the util-linux provided 'mount' is able tomount NFS shares.
If the later is the use case, perhaps we could try to hard reference toeach file system utility in util-linux, instead of having it dispatchsome tool supposed to be in the PATH? I'm not sure how difficult thatwould be, and it'd for sure increase the size of util-linux, but perhapsthe pros outweighs the cons.
Maxim
L
L
Leo Famulari wrote on 20 Feb 2020 19:37
(name . Maxim Cournoyer)(address . maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com)(address . 39505@debbugs.gnu.org)
20200220183726.GA6891@jasmine.lan
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:31:07PM -0500, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
Toggle quote (5 lines)> What is the use case? Just having btrfs utilities to manage Btrfs file> systems, or is there some problems to avoid? I know that for NFS you> must add nfs-utils so that the util-linux provided 'mount' is able to> mount NFS shares.
It's just to manage the filesystems. For example, the equivalent of `df-h` requires btrfs-progs.
Toggle quote (6 lines)> If the later is the use case, perhaps we could try to hard reference to> each file system utility in util-linux, instead of having it dispatch> some tool supposed to be in the PATH? I'm not sure how difficult that> would be, and it'd for sure increase the size of util-linux, but perhaps> the pros outweighs the cons.
Is there some integration between util-linux and btrfs-progs?
M
M
Maxim Cournoyer wrote on 20 Feb 2020 21:32
(name . Leo Famulari)(address . leo@famulari.name)(address . 39505@debbugs.gnu.org)
87k14hxanr.fsf@gmail.com
Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> writes:
Toggle quote (9 lines)> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:31:07PM -0500, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:>> What is the use case? Just having btrfs utilities to manage Btrfs file>> systems, or is there some problems to avoid? I know that for NFS you>> must add nfs-utils so that the util-linux provided 'mount' is able to>> mount NFS shares.>> It's just to manage the filesystems. For example, the equivalent of `df> -h` requires btrfs-progs.
OK; so just as a convenience.
Toggle quote (8 lines)>> If the later is the use case, perhaps we could try to hard reference to>> each file system utility in util-linux, instead of having it dispatch>> some tool supposed to be in the PATH? I'm not sure how difficult that>> would be, and it'd for sure increase the size of util-linux, but perhaps>> the pros outweighs the cons.>> Is there some integration between util-linux and btrfs-progs?
No, at least mounting Btrfs doesn't require a mount.btrfs helper likeNFS does.
Maxim
?
Your comment

Commenting via the web interface is currently disabled.

To comment on this conversation send email to 39505@debbugs.gnu.org