Re: Guix binary tarball

[Mark H Weaver]

address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> skribis:
>
>> Here's a suggested patch:
>>
>> diff --git a/gnu/system/install.scm b/gnu/system/install.scm
>> index 799851c..10fbfdd 100644
>> --- a/gnu/system/install.scm
>> +++ b/gnu/system/install.scm
>> @@ -71,7 +71,14 @@ under /root/.guix-profile where GUIX is installed."
>>            (with-directory-excursion %root
>>              (zero? (system* "tar" "--xz" "--format=gnu"
>>                              "--owner=root:0" "--group=root:0"
>> -                            "-cvf" #$output ".")))))
>> +                            "-cvf" #$output
>> +                            ;; Avoid adding /, /var, or /root to the 
>> tarball,
>> +                            ;; so that the ownership and permissions of 
>> those
>> +                            ;; directories will not be overwritten when
>> +                            ;; extracting the archive.
>> +                            "./root/.guix-profile"
>> +                            "./var/guix"
>> +                            "./gnu")))))
>>  
>>      (gexp->derivation "guix-tarball.tar.xz" build
>>                        #:references-graphs `(("profile" ,profile))
>>
>> If we did this, then we could revert 8c3a5d7059 and avoid any use of
>> --skip-old-files.  I would be in favor of this.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> Yes, that’s even better, please commit and revert 8c3a5d7059.

Done.

I would advocate releasing 0.8.3 ASAP with these fixes, since the binary
installation method in 0.8.2 has such serious problems.

What do you think?

      Mark