Ludovic Courtès (2015-06-15 23:44 +0300) wrote: > Alex Kost <alez...@gmail.com> skribis: > >> If one uses a relative symlink in 'local-file', it will lead to a broken >> symlink in the store as illustrated in the attached example. So I think >> it either: >> >> - should be documented explicitly that 'local-file' adds a specified >> file to the store blindly, which may lead to the problem with a broken >> symlink. >> >> - or 'local-file' (or a deeper procedure) should take care of that case >> and dereference a symlink if needed. >> >> WDYT? > > Actually, this only happens with #:recursive? #t, which is currently the > default. > > With #:recursive? #f, you get an error: > > > scheme@(guile-user)> ,enter-store-monad > store-monad@(guile-user) [1]> (gexp->derivation "foo" #~(symlink > #$(local-file "/tmp/symlink1" #:recursive? #f) #$output)) > guix/store.scm:604:22: In procedure add-to-store: > guix/store.scm:604:22: Throw to key `srfi-34' with args `(#<condition > &nix-protocol-error [message: "regular file expected" status: 1] 30c5ab0>)'. > > So I think we should first make #:recursive? default to #f, since that’s > what we want by default, and optionally have the <local-file> gexp > expander resolve symlinks. > > WDYT?
I agree, getting an error is better than a broken link, so I'm for making (#:recursive? #f) a default. And resolving symlinks would probably be even better. >> (define (call-derivation drv) >> (apply system* >> (cons (derivation-builder drv) >> (derivation-builder-arguments drv)))) > > This is quite original. ;-) I suppose that's a polite version of "That's not how it should be done". I just don't know what the proper way to "call" derivation is :-) -- Alex
