Re: Move switch-symlinks to (guix build utils)

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> skribis:

> Arun Isaac schreef op do 02-06-2022 om 20:36 [+0530]:
>> Hi Maxime,
>> 
>> > To avoid a world-rebuild, you could for now make a module (guix build
>> > symlinks) or such?  An alternative is (gnu build activation), but then
>> > some (guix ...) modules would depend on (gnu ...).
>> 
>> I don't really mind waiting for the next core-updates cycle. This
>> problem has been around for a long time. It wouldn't hurt much to wait a
>> bit longer. If there is consensus on this change, I can send a
>> patch. WDYT?
>
> Downside of (guix build utils): it makes it harder to modify switch-
> symlinks.  I don't know if that's too much of a downside in practice. 
> Also, there is a bug in switch-symlinks:
>
> (use-modules (guix utils))
> ;; simulate an interrupted switch-symlinks (C-c, power interruption, ...)
> (symlink "target" "link.new")
> ;; now try again
> (switch-symlinks "link" "target")
>
> ice-9/boot-9.scm:1685:16: In procedure raise-exception:
> In procedure symlink: Bestand bestaat al: "link.new"

That’s EACCES?

> If we move it to (guix build utils), I'd prefer the bug to be addressed first.

Yes, better be cautious before “setting it in stone”.  Do you have a fix
in mind?

With this issue addressed, I think it’s fine to move to (guix build
utils) on ‘core-updates’.  We’ll have to run ‘make check’ to make sure
all users are updated, probably with #:select to clarify what binding
they need from (guix build utils).

Thanks,
Ludo’.