Subject: wrapping disarchive (was Re: bug#62008: closed (Close))

From: Simon Tournier <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2025 17:54:02 +0200

Hi Andreas, Ludo,

> Newer version on master.

The intent with keeping this patch 62008 [1] was not the update – collateral
effect at the time and already applied IIRC – but to remove the
inconsistency.

    1: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/62008#1

As explained in the thread, the package disarchive is standalone but it
does not work.

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
$ guix shell -C disarchive -- disarchive --help
Backtrace:
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
  3564:26 19 (_)
In unknown file:
          18 (primitive-load-path "disarchive/digests" #<procedure 7…>)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
  3923:23 17 (_)
   3411:4 16 (define-module* _ #:filename _ #:pure _ #:version _ # _ …)
  3424:24 15 (_)
   222:17 14 (map1 (((disarchive git-hash)) ((gcrypt base16)) ((…)) …))
  3327:17 13 (resolve-interface (disarchive git-hash) #:select _ # _ …)
In ice-9/threads.scm:
    390:8 12 (_ _)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
  3253:13 11 (_)
In ice-9/threads.scm:
    390:8 10 (_ _)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
  3544:20  9 (_)
   2836:4  8 (save-module-excursion _)
  3564:26  7 (_)
In unknown file:
           6 (primitive-load-path "disarchive/git-hash" #<procedure …>)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
  3923:23  5 (_)
   3411:4  4 (define-module* _ #:filename _ #:pure _ #:version _ # _ …)
  3424:24  3 (_)
   222:29  2 (map1 (((disarchive utils)) ((gcrypt hash)) ((# #)) # …))
   222:17  1 (map1 (((gcrypt hash)) ((ice-9 binary-ports)) ((# #)) …))
   3330:6  0 (resolve-interface (gcrypt hash) #:select _ #:hide _ # _ …)

ice-9/boot-9.scm:3330:6: In procedure resolve-interface:
no code for module (gcrypt hash)
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

The user needs to know that it is Guile-based and thus that the package
guile needs to be propagated in order to trigger the search paths.  In
addition, other Guile library are required.

That’s why the patch about a wrapper [1] is still there.

Well, I do not know if the consensus has not been reached or if Ludo
overlooked my last messages; message that I haven’t raised again,
BTW. :-)

Cheers,
simon

1: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/62008#1