Relocatable guix in action: https://github.com/lomereiter/sambamba/issues/219
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 12:55:30PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> For these “guix archive -f docker” may also be handy (and safer)?
I am known to dislike docker.
Pj.
Hi!
Pjotr Prins skribis:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:42:09PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
[...]
>> Also, if we look at the big picture of non-root usage, this solution
>> addresses the most hostile environments: no user namespaces, no
>> container-spawning facility, no root guix-daemon, etc.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:42:09PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> > To fix the prefix restriction there are two routes, one is building
> > Guix itself on a large(r) path, which is the easy route, or write a
> > relocate patcher that can handle the non-zero terminated paths. I
> > think the latter
Hi Pjotr!
Pjotr Prins skribis:
> But, I thought the easy way is to patch a path with something the has
> the exact same size(!). This has the advantage that it will always
> work. Trying this second strategy I wrote a new tool which replaces
> the old path with a new one that takes the prefix an
Am 17.01.2017 um 10:15 schrieb Pjotr Prins:
> But, I thought the easy way is to patch a path with something the has
> the exact same size(!). This has the advantage that it will always
> work. Trying this second strategy I wrote a new tool which replaces
> the old path with a new one that takes the
Or relocating Guix binary packages onto a different prefix w.o. admin
rights (on a non-guix host)
I have been working on the problem of using Guix packages without
administrator rights. In some HPC environments and on most super
computers, at this point, it is next to impossible to circumvent this