Re: guix docker on gitlab-ci

[Graham Addis]

Hi Wolf,

Patch is now submitted, see following for details.
https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=64171
https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=64173

Now we find out what I forgot. ;-)

Thanks again for your help,

Graham

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 at 17:56, Graham Addis <grahamjamesaddis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Wolf,
>
> Well I managed to sort it out last weekend.
>
> I have added a --docker-entry-point option which can be invoked
> multiple times to provide the docker EntryPoint value in exec form.
>
> I have left the --entry-point behaviour alone except the
> --docker-entry-point takes precedence.
>
> I still have the docs to update, and to test the some of the different
> cases, but it all seems to work.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Graham
>
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 at 22:38, Graham Addis <grahamjamesaddis@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Wolf,
> >
> > Similar to what I was trying, which didn't work. I'll try to have a go
> > one evening and try and work out where I went wrong.
> >
> > Thanks again. Graham
> >
> > On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 at 18:35, wolf <wolf@wolfsden.cz> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2023-06-05 16:37:50 +0100, Graham Addis wrote:
> > > > Hi Wolf,
> > > >
> > > > Not a particularly successful weekend...
> > > >
> > > > As --entry-point was used by other pack methods I thought the best
> > > > option would be to add a --docker-entry-point just for the docker
> > > > format and pass it into the build as an extra-option like for deb and
> > > > rpm formats.
> > > >
> > > > However I couldn't work out how to pass in a list via the
> > > > extra-options, so I'm a bit stuck.
> > > >
> > > > If there is anyone who knows their way around the pack scripts and can
> > > > point me in the right direction, that would help, but other than that
> > > > I'll probably get some more time next weekend.
> > >
> > > I did not try to implement this, so my guess might be completely off, but
> > > looking at how -S is implemented, I would suggest trying something like:
> > >
> > > 1. Introducing new %docker-format-options and friends (similar to already
> > >    existing %deb-format-options and friends), providing the 
> > > --entry-point-arg
> > >    options, that would be specific to a docker format (although I am not 
> > > sure if
> > >    it needs to be specific, maybe some other formats support arguments as
> > >    well?).
> > > 2. Writing entry-point-arg-spec-option-parser, while taking inspiration 
> > > from
> > >    symlink-spec-option-parser.  Yours would be much simpler, since you 
> > > would be
> > >    just accumulating values into a list.
> > >
> > > As for the extra-options, I guess modifying current code (by adding the 
> > > 'docker
> > > option) into something like:
> > >
> > >     (extra-options (match pack-format
> > >                      ('deb
> > >                       (list #:control-file
> > >                             (process-file-arg opts 'control-file)
> > >                             #:postinst-file
> > >                             (process-file-arg opts 'postinst-file)
> > >                             #:triggers-file
> > >                             (process-file-arg opts 'triggers-file)))
> > >                      ('docker
> > >                       (list #:entry-point-args
> > >                             (process-file-arg opts 'entry-point-arg)))
> > >                      ('rpm
> > >                       (list #:relocatable? relocatable?
> > >                             #:prein-file
> > >                             (process-file-arg opts 'prein-file)
> > >                             #:postin-file
> > >                             (process-file-arg opts 'postin-file)
> > >                             #:preun-file
> > >                             (process-file-arg opts 'preun-file)
> > >                             #:postun-file
> > >                             (process-file-arg opts 'postun-file)))
> > >                      (_ '())))
> > >
> > > could work?  build-docker-image already accepts a list as an 
> > > #:entry-point, so
> > > it should be just a matter of properly composing the list.
> > >
> > > Not sure if this is helpful.
> > >
> > > W.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Graham
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 at 09:13, Graham Addis <grahamjamesaddis@gmail.com> 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Wolf,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 at 22:55, wolf <wolf@wolfsden.cz> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 2023-05-31 18:47:03 +0100, Graham Addis wrote:
> > > > > > > I could use the equivalent format for --entry-point
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --entry-point executable --entry-point param1 --entry-point param2
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > I think that is a reasonable idea.  Only downside is that it would 
> > > > > > not be
> > > > > > backwards compatible (since currently last --entry-point wins), 
> > > > > > however I am not
> > > > > > sure if someone actually relies on that behavior.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Backwards compatible way would be keeping --entry-point as it is 
> > > > > > and introducing
> > > > > > new argument (--entry-point-arg) that could be used to build the 
> > > > > > argument list,
> > > > > > but I might be overthinking it :).
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll go with extending --entry-point to accept multiple values and use
> > > > > all of them for --format=docker and simply use the last one provided
> > > > > for the other formats.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll try to put a patch together at the weekend.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for all your input, it really helps.
> > > > >
> > > > > Graham
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > There are only two hard things in Computer Science:
> > > cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.