GNU bug report logs - #41180
[PATCH] Add cachefilesd service.

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Felix Lechner <felix.lechner <at> lease-up.com>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#41180: closed ([PATCH] Add cachefilesd service.)
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2023 04:12:01 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your message dated Sat, 29 Apr 2023 21:10:20 -0700
with message-id <CAFHYt57-gRfpz5J_riOv48v8sjDmFbeOBw=d1czVJNAzu2xmMw <at> mail.gmail.com>
and subject line Closing in favor of Bug#63182
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #41180,
regarding [PATCH] Add cachefilesd service.
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)


-- 
41180: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=41180
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Jean-Baptiste Note <jean-baptiste.note <at> m4x.org>
To: guixpatch <guix-patches <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Mathieu Othacehe <m.othacehe <at> gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH] Add cachefilesd service.
Date: Sun, 10 May 2020 19:19:36 +0000

[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]

Dear guix developers, Mathieu,

Please find attached a first version of the cachefilesd service patch.
The second patch for documentation will be sent right after.

I have a few general newbie scheme questions:

- I gathered that #~ / #$ kinds of suspends evaluation / forces it -- is
  there documentation about this somewhere ?

- There's something that looks like a splat operator (only seen in
  conjuction with forcing evaluation in #$@) -- again i'd be interested
  in more documentation about this feature -- is this a guix-specific
  operator?

- I don't understand why there are ^L separating services in the scheme
  files -- is this necessary? A convention? What purpose does it serve?

Regarding the patch itself:

- i'm not entirely sure the service belongs to services/linux.scm

- documentation is hastily written. I have found no way to indent
  automatically the lisp code in the texi file, which is very painfull
  -- would there be an emacs solution for this?

- there are no automated tests (beyond what I have done by hand
  locally!), and there's no lint, so I don't really feel confident about
  it :) Are there tests for services to alleviate my fears?

- I've copied some other service for modprobing the required kernel
  modules before launching the daemon with a one-shot shepherd
  service. Frankly i'm not happy about this solution, it seems to me
  that it unnecessarily pollutes the shepherd configuration; maybe some
  other mechanism (graft?) adjusting the modprobe configuration could be
  better (better still, autoload the file). Any guidance would be nice
  (including, that this solution is sufficient for now :))

I had great fun writing this, it reminded me of writing cookbooks during
my 'Chef' days. I must confess that the Chef DSL embedded in ruby seemed
more concise, and that it provided a way to write a cookbook
'out-of-tree' which was kind of less daunting for newcomers; however
it's already amazing that you have this kind of functionality!

Kind regards,
Jean-Baptiste

[0001-gnu-Add-cachefilesd-service.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

[Message part 6 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Felix Lechner <felix.lechner <at> lease-up.com>
To: 41180-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Closing in favor of Bug#63182
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2023 21:10:20 -0700

Hi,

This bug is too old to trigger a CI job. The patch also needed
adjustments. Please check Bug#63182 for more progress.

Closing this bug. Thanks!

Kind regards
Felix

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.