[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#61255: closed ([PATCH 0/5] Add support for the RPM format to "guix p

From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: bug#61255: closed ([PATCH 0/5] Add support for the RPM format to "guix pack")
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 02:26:02 +0000

Your message dated Sun, 19 Feb 2023 21:25:05 -0500
with message-id <87mt59m5tq.fsf@gmail.com>
and subject line Re: [bug#61255] [PATCH v2 8/8] news: Add entry for the new 
'rpm' guix pack format.
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #61255,
regarding [PATCH 0/5] Add support for the RPM format to "guix pack"
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact

61255: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=61255
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: [PATCH 0/5] Add support for the RPM format to "guix pack" Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2023 11:19:26 -0500
Hello Guix!

This series adds support for the RPM format to "guix pack", so that one can
generate an RPM archive via e.g. "guix pack -f rpm hello", and install it on
their favorite RPM-based GNU/Linux distribution.  With the exception of the
payload compression, the generation of the archive is fully handled in Scheme,
which ended up being tricky, with the documentation about the RPM binary
format being scarce.  Most of the problems encountered were figured out
stepping an 'rpm' command invocation in GDB, which felt a bit like reverse

Anyway, the end result appears to work well and has few dependencies (compared
to using 'rpmbuild', as most other projects do), so I think it was worth the


Maxim Cournoyer (5):
  pack: Extract keyword-ref procedure from debian-archive.
  gexp: computed-file: Honor %guile-for-build.
  pack: Extract populate-profile-root from
  tests: pack: Fix indentation.
  pack: Add RPM format.

 Makefile.am           |   2 +
 doc/guix.texi         |  45 +++-
 guix/gexp.scm         |   3 +-
 guix/rpm.scm          | 577 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 guix/scripts/pack.scm | 478 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
 tests/pack.scm        | 331 ++++++++++++++----------
 tests/rpm.scm         |  86 +++++++
 7 files changed, 1258 insertions(+), 264 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 guix/rpm.scm
 create mode 100644 tests/rpm.scm

base-commit: a60c750eec73a2030b08b32af3b9f435c7ecca54

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: [bug#61255] [PATCH v2 8/8] news: Add entry for the new 'rpm' guix pack format. Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2023 21:25:05 -0500 User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux)

"pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de> writes:

> This message was not accepted by Gmail, it reports SPF/DKIM error, so I
> resend.

Well received!

> Hi Maxim!  Two things.  First, could you include this German
> translation?
>> (title
>>  (en "New @samp{rpm} format for the @command{guix pack} command"))
> (de "Neues Format @samp{rpm} für den Befehl @command{guix pack}")
>> (body
>>  (en "RPM archives (with the .rpm file extension) can now be produced
> (de "Sie können jetzt auch RPM-Archive (mit der Dateinamenserweiterung
> .rpm) erzeugen mit dem Befehl @command{guix pack --format=rpm}.  Damit
> haben Sie einen alternativen Distributionsweg für mit Guix erstellte
> Software.  Hier sehen Sie ein einfaches Beispiel, wie Sie ein
> RPM-Archiv für das Paket @code{hello} erzeugen:
> @example
> guix pack --format=rpm --symlink=/usr/bin/hello=bin/hello hello
> @end example
> Siehe @command{info \"(guix.de) Aufruf von guix pack\"} für mehr
> Informationen.")

Done, thank you!

> —Other than that, I just tried using your patch to make hello.rpm as in
> the news example and to make another advent.rpm with open-adventure.  To
> my surprise, I could install both (on a fresh install of Fedora Server
> x86_64 without Guix installed), even though hello and open-adventure
> both reference /gnu/store/5h2w4qi9hk1qzzgi1w83220ydslinr4s-glibc-2.33.
> From reading your documentation, I had not expected this.  Perhaps you
> should mention that it is possible to both run `sudo rpm -i hello.rpm`
> and `sudo rpm -i advent.rpm` and it does not conflict?

Thanks for sharing your feedback!  I could reproduce the experiment in
an old RHEL VM, and indeed, identical files do not seem to cause
conflicts, which is awesome for our use case!  I've modified the doc as

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
modified   doc/guix.texi
@@ -6940,8 +6940,7 @@ RPM archive, for example.
 The RPM format supports relocatable packages via the @option{--prefix}
 option of the @command{rpm} command, which can be handy to install an
-RPM package to a specific prefix, making installing multiple
-Guix-produced RPM packages side by side possible.
+RPM package to a specific prefix.
 guix pack -f rpm -R -C xz -S /usr/bin/hello=bin/hello hello
@@ -6952,11 +6951,10 @@ sudo rpm --install --prefix=/opt 
 @end example
 @quotation Note
-Similarly to Debian packages, two RPM packages with conflicting files
-cannot be installed simultaneously.  Contrary to Debian packages, RPM
-supports relocatable packages, so file conflicts can be avoided by
-installing the RPM packages under different installation prefixes, as
-shown in the above example.
+Contrary to Debian packages, conflicting but @emph{identical} files in
+RPM packages can be installed simultaneously, which means multiple
+@command{guix pack}-produced RPM packages can usually be installed side
+by side without any problem.
 @end quotation
 @quotation Warning
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
With this, I've now pushed the series to master, after running 'make
check TESTS="tests/rpm.scm tests/pack.scm"' one last time.




--- End Message ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]