2018-02-15 0:28 GMT+01:00 Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org>: > Gábor Boskovits <boskov...@gmail.com> skribis: > > > the make-file-writeable function seems a bit too imperative to me, it > would > > look better if we could have a with-file-writeable function, so that we > can > > constrain the size effect, and more. Moreover if a file is read-only to > > start with, it might be a good idea to keep it that way anyways. WDYT? > > Now that I found the function in (guix build utils) (thanks for guiding > me!), I see what you mean. ‘make-file-writable’ is imperative, true, > but I’d say that file system operations are imperative in nature. > > A ‘with-file-writeable’ form would give a false sense of “containment” I > think. Contrary to what the name suggests, its effect would *not* be > limited to the dynamic extent of its body, in the current thread; > instead, the effect would be globally visible on the system. > > Last, the style of (guix build utils) is a lesser concern in a way > because its primary use case is package builds. All this code is > “plumbing” and mostly imperative. > > So, all in all, I’d rather keep it this way. > > Thoughts? > > Ok, the keep it this way. Another question, this came up, as I was trying to find a nice solution to reset-gzip-timestamps failing. I got different pieces of advice if I should reset the permissions after resetting the timestamp, but I'm still not sure. It seems that the easiest way to this would be to just add a call to make-file-writable to the phase at the beginning, as we finally end up with a read-only one in the store anyway. I feel that reseting the permissions is unneccesary additional complexity. WDYT?
> Ludo’. >
