John Darrington <j...@darrington.wattle.id.au> skribis: > On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 12:59:50PM +0100, Ludovic Court??s wrote: > John Darrington <j...@darrington.wattle.id.au> skribis: > > > On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 11:55:13PM +0100, Ludovic Court??s wrote: > > [...] > > > > Also, it would only work if nfs-utils was installed in the > current system profile, > > > which need not be the case. It might be installed only in > root's profile or I might > > > want to see what happens if I use an alternative version of > nfs-utils. > > > > That ???mount??? can invoke ???mount.nfs??? looks like a > convenience to me, not > > something highly critical. > > > > Well it's critical if "mount -a" is going to work, and thus if NFS > filesystems (such as /home in > > many networks) can be automatically mounted at boot time. > > GuixSD doesn???t use the ???mount??? command to mount file systems so > that > shouldn???t have any influence. > > What does it use instead?
The ‘mount’ system call; see (gnu build file-systems). > 1,093 packages depend on util-linux. Per the strategy outlined at > <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2016-10/msg00933.html> > this could go to ???staging??? but I think this should go to > ???core-updates??? > which we???ll reopen to fix <http://bugs.gnu.org/24703>. > > I'm irritated that util-linux has so many, completely unrelated things in it. > For example > it contains the "mount", "cal" and "col" commands. Regardless of the NFS > issues, I > suggest we consider separating it anyway, into several packages all deriving > from the common > source. The strategy is to stick to what upstream does, in general, and I’m not convinced splitting would buy us much (in terms of disk usage, for instance.) Ludo’.
