GNU bug report logs - #49149
[PATCH 0/7] Add deb format for guix pack.

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 49149 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [bug#49149] [PATCH 0/7] Add deb format for guix pack.
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2021 15:26:45 +0200

Hi,

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

> Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> skribis:
>>
>>> Instead of just naming them by their pack type, add information from the
>>> package(s) they contain to make it easier to differentiate them.
>>>
>>> * guix/scripts/pack.scm (define-with-source): New macro.
>>> (manifest->friendly-name): Extract procedure from ...
>>> (docker-image): ... here, now defined via the above macro.  Adjust REPOSITORY
>>> argument value accordingly.
>>> (guix-pack): Derive NAME using MANIFEST->FRIENDLY-NAME.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> -            (define tag
>>> -              ;; Compute a meaningful "repository" name, which will show up in
>>> -              ;; the output of "docker images".
>>> -              (let ((manifest (profile-manifest #$profile)))
>>> -                (let loop ((names (map manifest-entry-name
>>> -                                       (manifest-entries manifest))))
>>> -                  (define str (string-join names "-"))
>>> -                  (if (< (string-length str) 40)
>>> -                      str
>>> -                      (match names
>>> -                        ((_) str)
>>> -                        ((names ... _) (loop names))))))) ;drop one entry
>>
>> I think this should not be factorized because the requirements are very
>> Docker-dependent.  Once factorized, it becomes easy to overlook this.
>
> Hmm, I'm not a docker format expert, but my quick reading about it
> turned no restrictions about what a docker image label should look like?
> So perhaps it is not specially Docker-dependent.

It’s a hack specifically written with Docker repository names in mind,
and the 40-or-so character limit, for instance.

> If there's something truly Docker-dependent about it I'd suggest adding
> a #:docker-compatible? boolean option to the procedure.

To me it’s a case where factorization isn’t beneficial.  Even if there’s
a similar procedure used in a different context, it’s still a different
context with different constraints.  My 2¢!

Ludo’.

Previous Next

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