bug#61853: ‘guix pack’ shell tests fail

[Maxim Cournoyer]

Hi,

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> Hi Maxim,
>
> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> skribis:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>>> That’s an acceptable change IMO, introduced in
>>> 68380db4c40a2ee1156349a87254fd7b1f1a52d5.  However, the tests were
>>> evidently not run after that change, which is problematic.
>>
>> Interesting.  I had done all my testing using tests/pack.scm (and the
>> new tests/rpm.scm), and overlooked tests/pack.sh.
>
> …
>
>>> Anyway, fixed in 92a0e60a963a54230e400c5c2ae585205489bf35.  Both tests
>>> now pass for me.
>>
>> Thanks (again)!
>
> To be clear, it’s time-consuming and stressful.  That’s not sane and I’d
> rather not work that way.

Again, thanks for fixing up after me, but you didn't need to put
yourself under such pressure.  As the author of the problematic change,
the responsibility of fixing it was on me; I understand this well.

>>> One issue with 68380db4c40a2ee1156349a87254fd7b1f1a52d5, though, is that
>>> it introduces a copy of the profile being built to the store
>>> (“profile-directory”).  This was purposefully avoided before because
>>> it’s very I/O-intensive, space-consuming, and puts more pressure on the
>>> store.  It’s a pattern we avoided for system images too, having noticed
>>> its cost (commit 7f75a7ec08975eb6d6e01db61bd6b91f447f655e for instance.)
>>>
>>> We may need to come back to a single derivation well or creating packs
>>> for big profiles will be too costly.
>>
>> I agree it's expensive; we're trading IO for storage though, so the case
>> of generating the same pack in multiple format, it could be beneficial
>> by only computing the union directory once.  The real motivation was
>> avoiding code duplication though; perhaps this could be accomplished by
>> moving the common logic to (guix build pack-utils)?
>
> Yes, that’s a good idea.  There’s already (guix build pack) and I guess
> we could move roughly the contents of ‘self-contained-tarball/builder’
> and ‘populate-profile-root’ there.
>
> How does that sound?

Sounds good.  See an implementation in #61949, to which you should be
CC'd already (per 'etc/teams.scm cc-members HEAD^ HEAD').

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim