[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Workflow management with GNU Guix
From: |
Roel Janssen |
Subject: |
Re: Workflow management with GNU Guix |
Date: |
Tue, 25 Oct 2016 15:28:00 +0200 |
User-agent: |
mu4e 0.9.17; emacs 25.1.1 |
gwl.tar.gz
Description: application/gzip
workflow-language.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> Hello Guix!
>
> Roel Janssen <address@hidden> skribis:
>
>> So, I would like to propose a new Guix subcommand and an extension to
>> the package management language to add workflow management features.
>>
>> Would this be a feature you are interested in adding to GNU Guix?
>
> I don’t know if it should be in Guix itself (and it’s probably too early
> to think about it), but there’s definitely interest in it!
>
> Pjotr mentioned it before, and Ricardo started a thread on this topic on
> help-guix in February¹, where we discussed something similar to what you
> proposed. I agree with you that Guix should be a nice tool for the job.
>
> ¹ https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-guix/2016-02/msg00019.html
>
>> I'm currently working on a proof-of-concept implementation that has three
>> record types/levels of abstraction:
>> <workflow>: Describes which <process>es should be run, and concerns itself
>> with
>> the order of execution.
>>
>> <process>: Describes what packages are needed to run the programs involved,
>> and its relationship to other processes. Processes take input
>> and
>> generate output much like the package construction process.
>>
>> <script>: Short and simple imperative instructions to perform a task.
>> They are
>> part of a <process>. Currently, my implementation generates a
>> shell
>> script that can be either Guile, Sh, Perl or Python.
>
> In the previous discussion, I thought that a gexp would be enough to
> write a derivation that implements a workflow. That is, basically you’d
> write:
>
> (define (my-workflow input)
> (gexp->derivation "result" #~(process-the-thing #$input #$output)))
>
> Maybe it’s all it takes to represent a workflow? Or maybe my idea of
> what workflows look like is too naive.
>
>> The subcommand I envision is:
>> guix workflow
>>
>> With primarily:
>> guix workflow --run=<name-of-workflow-definition>
>>
>> If you are interested in adding any form of workflow management to GNU Guix,
>> I
>> can elaborate on my proof-of-concept implementation, so we can work from
>> there.
>> (or throw everything out of the window and start from scratch ;-))
>
> I’m interested in seeing what it’s like, and examples of it!
I realize I never shared my proof-of-concept implementation. I attached
my motivations for having a workflow language in Guix, and my code.
The subcommand "guix workflow" does not work (yet) here. I currently
execute a workflow directly from the REPL.
A final point to note is that I would like to do a second attempt at
designing the workflow language, changing the way we can execute
programs.
Kind regards,
Roel Janssen
- Re: Workflow management with GNU Guix,
Roel Janssen <=
- Re: Workflow management with GNU Guix, Ludovic Courtès, 2016/10/26
- Re: Workflow management with GNU Guix, Roel Janssen, 2016/10/26
- Re: Workflow management with GNU Guix, Ludovic Courtès, 2016/10/28
- Re: Workflow management with GNU Guix, Roel Janssen, 2016/10/28
- Re: Workflow management with GNU Guix, Ludovic Courtès, 2016/10/28
- Re: Workflow management with GNU Guix, Roel Janssen, 2016/10/28
- Re: Workflow management with GNU Guix, Ludovic Courtès, 2016/10/29