Re: usage of basu as requirement for sd-bus
On 30-08-2022 11:27, muradm wrote: IIUC, everything using basu also works fine with elogind (*), so the 'status quo' of still using elogind (for old and new) seems harmless to me (except for size -- basu is smaller). I don't find the "everything using basu also works fine with elogind" statement/assumption/guess correct, as per contents of elogind and basu. See above comment for ifdef thingy. From the README.md of basu: The sd-bus library, extracted from systemd. Agreed on th Some projects rely on the sd-bus library for DBus support. However not all systems have systemd or elogind installed. This library provides just sd-bus (and the `busctl` utility). This does not look like basu adds additional functionality. My intention is not to have something that is not used. Roughly, if elogind is not used, why should I have it on my system. You should have it because the alternative (i.e., sometimes using basu and sometimes using elogind) increases disk space usage -- it's all internal, unless there's a bug you shouldn't notice it's using elogind instead of basu unless you're doing "guix edit" or such. Basically, elogind provides: elogind, loginctl, busctl, libelogind (sd-bus, sd-login ...) ... basu provides: busctl, libbasu If basu is enought for package it should dependen on basu IMHO. So my reason is not directly-storage-only, but dependency which impacts storage in some or another way. We have package outputs, we can separate the libelogind and busctl from the rest. elogind is used, just not in its entirety. Btw, how much storage are we talking about when having some packages depend on elogind and some on basu? Is it user storage or build server/substitute storage concern? For basu and elogind itself: 0.9 MiB and 4.2 MiB For basu and elogind in total: 72.9 MiB and 172.8 MiB. (See: "guix size"). The latter numbers are a bit misleading, as one of the dependencies is 'shepherd' and 'libgc', which would be installed anyway by other software, and because elogind refers to pkg-config while it probably shouldn't. On "Is it user storage or build serve/substitute storage concern": yes. There isn't really a "user / substitute storage" distinction, unless you count baked nars. But that's just multiplying the storage by approx. 2 (ignoring deduplication). Greetings, Maxime. OpenPGP_0x49E3EE22191725EE.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: usage of basu as requirement for sd-bus
Maxime Devos writes: [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]] On 30-08-2022 09:59, muradm wrote: Hello, basu is sd-bus library extracted from systemd. Currently, there are two packages depending on it, which are mako and grimshot. In https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=56859, I suggest switching xdg-desktop-portal-wlr to basu. In very same issue, Maxime asks to discuss switching _all_ dependents of elogind to basu. [1] Some elogind dependents, like wireplumber, as per code depends on sd-login.h also in module-logind.c. While I have wireplumber-without-elogind locally, I don't propose switching it basu, because someone may want module-logind.c to work. [2] Currently there are 1461 packages depend on elogind. First, all of them should be analyzed if they do use sd-bus only, those can be switched to basu. Then those using more than sd-bus should be analyzed if elogind is missing would their functionality be hurt. If these problems are like [1], then IIUC these problems would manifest as build errors. Checking for build errors is relatively simple by pushing to a separate branch first, evaluating it on ci.guix.gnu.org and checking for new build failures. Not necessarily, simple ifdef or alike will silently drop anticipiated functionality. Software will build without errors but functionality expected by users might be missing. Because of [1] and [2], I find it not feasible/not possible to blindly switch _all_ dependents from elogind to basu. Do I miss anything else here? IIUC, everything using basu also works fine with elogind (*), so the 'status quo' of still using elogind (for old and new) seems harmless to me (except for size -- basu is smaller). I don't find the "everything using basu also works fine with elogind" statement/assumption/guess correct, as per contents of elogind and basu. See above comment for ifdef thingy. As far as I know, the benefit of 'basu' is using less storage (**). If most dependents are switched from elogind to basu, then this benefit can be fulfilled. But if we just do a mix of elogind and basu, then we have both elogind and basu in the store, _increasing_ the storage footprint instead of lowering, which is the opposite of the goal of lowering storage usage. As such, assuming that lowering the storage footprint was your reason for switching to basu, I think we should either try switching _all_ packages to basu or keep using elogind and add elogind instead of basu to new dependents. My intention is not to have something that is not used. Roughly, if elogind is not used, why should I have it on my system. Basically, elogind provides: elogind, loginctl, busctl, libelogind (sd-bus, sd-login ...) ... basu provides: busctl, libbasu If basu is enought for package it should dependen on basu IMHO. So my reason is not directly-storage-only, but dependency which impacts storage in some or another way. Btw, how much storage are we talking about when having some packages depend on elogind and some on basu? Is it user storage or build server/substitute storage concern? Greetings, Maxime (*) This is an unverified guess. If disproved, my reasoning becomes a lot weaker. (**) This is just a guess about what your goal was, maybe you had a different reason in mind. E.g., basu seems to be more active than elogind. [2. OpenPGP public key --- application/pgp-keys; OpenPGP_0x49E3EE22191725EE.asc]... [[End of PGP Signed Part]] Thanks in advance, muradm signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: usage of basu as requirement for sd-bus
(**) This is just a guess about what your goal was, maybe you had a different reason in mind. E.g., basu seems to be more active than elogind. Oops I misread the dates -- the latest commit in basu was before the latest commit in elogind. OpenPGP_0x49E3EE22191725EE.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: usage of basu as requirement for sd-bus
On 30-08-2022 09:59, muradm wrote: Hello, basu is sd-bus library extracted from systemd. Currently, there are two packages depending on it, which are mako and grimshot. In https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=56859, I suggest switching xdg-desktop-portal-wlr to basu. In very same issue, Maxime asks to discuss switching _all_ dependents of elogind to basu. [1] Some elogind dependents, like wireplumber, as per code depends on sd-login.h also in module-logind.c. While I have wireplumber-without-elogind locally, I don't propose switching it basu, because someone may want module-logind.c to work. [2] Currently there are 1461 packages depend on elogind. First, all of them should be analyzed if they do use sd-bus only, those can be switched to basu. Then those using more than sd-bus should be analyzed if elogind is missing would their functionality be hurt. If these problems are like [1], then IIUC these problems would manifest as build errors. Checking for build errors is relatively simple by pushing to a separate branch first, evaluating it on ci.guix.gnu.org and checking for new build failures. Because of [1] and [2], I find it not feasible/not possible to blindly switch _all_ dependents from elogind to basu. Do I miss anything else here? IIUC, everything using basu also works fine with elogind (*), so the 'status quo' of still using elogind (for old and new) seems harmless to me (except for size -- basu is smaller). As far as I know, the benefit of 'basu' is using less storage (**). If most dependents are switched from elogind to basu, then this benefit can be fulfilled. But if we just do a mix of elogind and basu, then we have both elogind and basu in the store, _increasing_ the storage footprint instead of lowering, which is the opposite of the goal of lowering storage usage. As such, assuming that lowering the storage footprint was your reason for switching to basu, I think we should either try switching _all_ packages to basu or keep using elogind and add elogind instead of basu to new dependents. Greetings, Maxime (*) This is an unverified guess. If disproved, my reasoning becomes a lot weaker. (**) This is just a guess about what your goal was, maybe you had a different reason in mind. E.g., basu seems to be more active than elogind. OpenPGP_0x49E3EE22191725EE.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
usage of basu as requirement for sd-bus
Hello, basu is sd-bus library extracted from systemd. Currently, there are two packages depending on it, which are mako and grimshot. In https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=56859, I suggest switching xdg-desktop-portal-wlr to basu. In very same issue, Maxime asks to discuss switching _all_ dependents of elogind to basu. [1] Some elogind dependents, like wireplumber, as per code depends on sd-login.h also in module-logind.c. While I have wireplumber-without-elogind locally, I don't propose switching it basu, because someone may want module-logind.c to work. [2] Currently there are 1461 packages depend on elogind. First, all of them should be analyzed if they do use sd-bus only, those can be switched to basu. Then those using more than sd-bus should be analyzed if elogind is missing would their functionality be hurt. Because of [1] and [2], I find it not feasible/not possible to blindly switch _all_ dependents from elogind to basu. Do I miss anything else here? Thanks in advance, muradm signature.asc Description: PGP signature