| Message ID | cover.1687188729.git.graham@addis.org.uk |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | guix: pack: docker add docker-entry-point options | expand |
Accidently included an emacs backup file in the patch submission. The correct bugs should be 64171 and 64173. This can be closed. On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 at 16:39, GNU bug Tracking System <help-debbugs@gnu.org> wrote: > > Thank you for filing a new bug report with debbugs.gnu.org. > > This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message > has been received. > > Your message is being forwarded to the package maintainers and other > interested parties for their attention; they will reply in due course. > > As you requested using X-Debbugs-CC, your message was also forwarded to > Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net>, Josselin Poiret <dev@jpoiret.xyz>, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org>, Mathieu Othacehe <othacehe@gnu.org>, Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>, Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr> > (after having been given a bug report number, if it did not have one). > > Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s): > guix-patches@gnu.org > > If you wish to submit further information on this problem, please > send it to 64172@debbugs.gnu.org. > > Please do not send mail to help-debbugs@gnu.org unless you wish > to report a problem with the Bug-tracking system. > > -- > 64172: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=64172 > GNU Bug Tracking System > Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems
Hi, Graham James Addis <grahamjamesaddis@gmail.com> skribis: > This patch adds an option to guix pack to allow multiple parameters to > be passed to the guix pack --format=docker command. > > Currently the although the --entry-point option can be entered multiple > times, only the last entry is used as the docker ENTRYPOINT. > > Using the new --docker-entry-point option will take multiple entries > and use them in the docker ENTRYPOINT exec form. How about this alternative route: support multiple ‘--entry-point’ arguments. The first one is passed to the backend as #:entry-point (as is currently the case) and extra instances are passed as a list as #:entry-point-arguments. That way one could do: guix pack -f docker guile \ --entry-point=bin/guile --entry-point=--version Or, perhaps even better, introduce a new ‘--entry-point-argument’ (or ‘-A’) option. The advantage compared to ‘--docker-entry-point’ is that it could be supported by all the backends. WDYT? Thanks, Ludo’.
Hi Ludo, Happy to rework it either way. I can't think of any showstoppers off the top of my head. Which option would make the most sense? Thanks, Graham On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 at 10:26, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > Graham James Addis <grahamjamesaddis@gmail.com> skribis: > > > This patch adds an option to guix pack to allow multiple parameters to > > be passed to the guix pack --format=docker command. > > > > Currently the although the --entry-point option can be entered multiple > > times, only the last entry is used as the docker ENTRYPOINT. > > > > Using the new --docker-entry-point option will take multiple entries > > and use them in the docker ENTRYPOINT exec form. > > How about this alternative route: support multiple ‘--entry-point’ > arguments. The first one is passed to the backend as #:entry-point (as > is currently the case) and extra instances are passed as a list as > #:entry-point-arguments. > > That way one could do: > > guix pack -f docker guile \ > --entry-point=bin/guile --entry-point=--version > > Or, perhaps even better, introduce a new ‘--entry-point-argument’ (or > ‘-A’) option. > > The advantage compared to ‘--docker-entry-point’ is that it could be > supported by all the backends. > > WDYT? > > Thanks, > Ludo’.
Graham Addis <grahamjamesaddis@gmail.com> writes: > Hi Ludo, > > Happy to rework it either way. I can't think of any showstoppers off > the top of my head. > > Which option would make the most sense? [...] >> Or, perhaps even better, introduce a new ‘--entry-point-argument’ (or >> ‘-A’) option. IMO ‘--entry-point-argument’ is more semantic, its destination is clearer [...] Thanks a lot for this patch! Happy hacking, Gio'
One last question, as the proposed changes no longer reflect this bug description, should I raise a new bug, or just add the replacement patch to this one? On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 at 17:40, Giovanni Biscuolo <g@xelera.eu> wrote: > > Graham Addis <grahamjamesaddis@gmail.com> writes: > > > Hi Ludo, > > > > Happy to rework it either way. I can't think of any showstoppers off > > the top of my head. > > > > Which option would make the most sense? > > [...] > > >> Or, perhaps even better, introduce a new ‘--entry-point-argument’ (or > >> ‘-A’) option. > > IMO ‘--entry-point-argument’ is more semantic, its destination is clearer > > [...] > > Thanks a lot for this patch! > > Happy hacking, Gio' > > -- > Giovanni Biscuolo > > Xelera IT Infrastructures
Hi Graham, Graham Addis <grahamjamesaddis@gmail.com> writes: > One last question, as the proposed changes no longer reflect this bug > description, should I raise a new bug, or just add the replacement > patch to this one? You can retitle bugs on debbugs, have a look at [1]. [1] https://debbugs.gnu.org/server-control.html Best,