Message ID | 58b21d29-f0b0-af8a-8c9e-11f4dd7a317a@gmail.com |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Handle runit-based foreign distributions | expand |
Hello, as I recently worked on the same subject in [1], I reviewed and amended the documentation patch [2]. [1] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=40601 [2] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=37624
Hello, as I had been working on the installer lately [1], I tried to tackle this bug also, I have it mostly working. I added support for openrc-based init systems. I opted to support both adduser & useradd, changed some tool calls to work on busybox, etc... Then sprinkled a bit of cleanup & polish over the top. It's not finished, because I could not test it. I have a problem building the binary-tarball since I switched to the 1.1.0 release and I've yet to try to build on an earlier version. Stay tuned, patches incoming for review. [1] https://issues.guix.gnu.org/40601
Hi Vincent, On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 at 13:55, Vincent Legoll <vincent.legoll@gmail.com> wrote: > as I had been working on the installer lately [1], > I tried to tackle this bug also, I have it mostly > working. > > I added support for openrc-based init systems. > > I opted to support both adduser & useradd, changed > some tool calls to work on busybox, etc... Then > sprinkled a bit of cleanup & polish over the top. > > It's not finished, because I could not test it. I > have a problem building the binary-tarball since I > switched to the 1.1.0 release and I've yet to try > to build on an earlier version. > > Stay tuned, patches incoming for review. > > [1] https://issues.guix.gnu.org/40601 Do you mean that the incoming patches will include an explanation in the manual about adduser/useradd? Do you mean that guix-install.sh will now include a conditional test on the kind of foreign distibution to use adduser or useradd? Thank you for working on that. Cheers, simon
I have openrc working on parabola with guix-daemon. It successfully registers the following service. #! /sbin/openrc-run description="guix build daemon" command="/var/guix/profiles/per-user/root/current-guix/bin/guix-daemon" command_args="--build-users-group=guixbuild" command_background=true pidfile="/run/guix-daemon.pid" The above is a modification of Vincent's code in order to make it run for me without using the @localstatedir@ variable. If anybody has suggestions, corrections, and incites about this it would be greatly appreciated. I would like to get this working with the packaged version of guix in parabola https://www.parabola.nu/packages/?q=guix since that PKGBUILD does not support openrc currently. It also needs to be updated.
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 01:44:39PM +0000, jgart--- via Guix-patches via wrote: > I have openrc working on parabola with guix-daemon. It successfully registers the following service. > > #! /sbin/openrc-run > > description="guix build daemon" > command="/var/guix/profiles/per-user/root/current-guix/bin/guix-daemon" > command_args="--build-users-group=guixbuild" > command_background=true > pidfile="/run/guix-daemon.pid" Great! > The above is a modification of Vincent's code in order to make it run for me without using the @localstatedir@ variable. Does it still use the "correct" local state directory? Normally that's '/var/guix' but I'm not sure what Parabola does. > I would like to get this working with the packaged version of guix in parabola https://www.parabola.nu/packages/?q=guix Is it not working now? What remains to be done, aside from updating the packages?
Hello, The patch series is becoming long. So here is a batch of fairly easy ones, to lighten it a bit.
Dear Vincent, I am working on Bug #43744 and Path #43769 and I hit these patches set. <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/43744> <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/43769> Well, I am a bit lost with the different series and I do not know which are still valid and which are now obsolete. Could you rebase and resent the patch set? And reroll with v5? Thank you in advance. All the best, simon
Vincent Legoll <vincent.legoll@gmail.com> writes: > Hello, > > The patch series is becoming long. So here is a batch of fairly easy > ones, to lighten it a bit. Hi, Sorry for the delays in reviewing this. Thanks for sending a smaller set of patches, that makes reviewing easier. I made some tweaks, and pushed 4 commits to master as d2532317d136ac063a24baeec6688ea0e0ebe37b. I'm not sure about the bashisms stuff, given the script seems to depend on bash (see the exec bash bit at the start), I think using bash functionality is reasonable. What was your motivation behind these changes? (sorry if I've missed this earlier in the thread). Maybe once we've talked about the bashisms stuff, would you be able to send another set of patches for review? Thanks, Chris
Hello, > Thanks for sending a smaller set of patches, that makes reviewing > easier. I made some tweaks, and pushed 4 commits to master as > d2532317d136ac063a24baeec6688ea0e0ebe37b. Thanks for taking care of this, I'll have a look. > I'm not sure about the bashisms stuff, given the script seems to depend > on bash (see the exec bash bit at the start), I think using bash > functionality is reasonable. What was your motivation behind these > changes? (sorry if I've missed this earlier in the thread). Some distributions that I intended to add support for don't default to bash (nor have it installed by default). I think this script should aim for the broadest possible support, but that is only my opinion. And the patch set was not finished, I wanted to tackle the low hanging fruits first (also to test the interest from the guix team before doing too much). > Maybe once we've talked about the bashisms stuff, would you be able to > send another set of patches for review? I'll try to revive the patch set, and submit other portions I should have lying somewhere. Tchuss
I rebased and sent the next batch On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 8:35 PM Vincent Legoll <vincent.legoll@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > > Thanks for sending a smaller set of patches, that makes reviewing > > easier. I made some tweaks, and pushed 4 commits to master as > > d2532317d136ac063a24baeec6688ea0e0ebe37b. > > Thanks for taking care of this, I'll have a look. > > > I'm not sure about the bashisms stuff, given the script seems to depend > > on bash (see the exec bash bit at the start), I think using bash > > functionality is reasonable. What was your motivation behind these > > changes? (sorry if I've missed this earlier in the thread). > > Some distributions that I intended to add support for don't default to bash > (nor have it installed by default). I think this script should aim for > the broadest > possible support, but that is only my opinion. > > And the patch set was not finished, I wanted to tackle the low hanging fruits > first (also to test the interest from the guix team before doing too much). > > > Maybe once we've talked about the bashisms stuff, would you be able to > > send another set of patches for review? > > I'll try to revive the patch set, and submit other portions I should have lying > somewhere. > > Tchuss > > -- > Vincent Legoll