Hi, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.courno...@gmail.com> skribis:
>> My view is just that this mechanism belongs in “user code”, not in the >> low-level mechanisms such as ‘build-expression->derivation’ and >> ‘gexp->derivation’. It’s a matter of separation of concerns. > > Why? On my Guix System, such signal handling is handled by Shepherd, if > I'm not mistaken. As I user, I can trust the foundation to be sane, > rather than having to provide the bits to make it so myself. > >> Of course we don’t want to duplicate that code every time, but the way >> we should factorize it, IMO, is by putting it in a “normal” module that >> people will use. >> >> Putting it in gnu-build-system is an admittedly hacky but easy way to >> have it widely shared. > > I think we can do better than hacky here :-) I think the real issue here is semantic clarity when it comes to derivation inputs. If I write: (gexp->derivation "foo" #~(mkdir #$output)) I can be sure that my derivation depends on nothing but (default-guile). This is important for tests, but also to make sure we can use this primitive everywhere—if it pulled in the Shepherd, I wouldn’t be able to use to build glibc, because there’d be a cycle. In that sense, having child-reaping code in gnu-build-system.scm, just like in (guix least-authority), doesn’t seem unreasonable to me. That said, I’m open to other proposals so please unleash your creativity! :-) We’re touching core components though so this will require discussion. Ludo’.
