Howdy! Maxim Cournoyer <[email protected]> skribis:
> I tried capturing the issue in the commit message, but I'll provide > another more hands-on view: the Jami service was broken due to changes > in Shepherd 0.9.0 that caused the blocking sleeps + concurrent > make+forkexec-constructor/container and fork+exec-command combination > used to not work anymore. OK. Thanks for sharing the strace log; at first sight I don’t see any clear clue, but hey, maybe it’s fine to leave that as a mystery since there’s another solution. [...] >> Longer-term I think this should go in Jami proper though. It’s great >> that Guix has an edge over the competition :-), but having to maintain >> it is less nice. > > Perhaps with the Scheme bindings introduced by Olivier for the Jami > tests (that work via an embedded libguile), it could be possible to add > the ability to pass an init script to 'jamid' at launch time, which > would automate importing the account. Proper 'Scheme' bindings would be > nice though, and I'd like to look into the feasibility to add these via > Swig. Food for thought. Sounds fun. (BTW, I’d recommend against SWIG: it’s not “pretty”, leaves a lot of work to do, including wrapping the generated wrappers and debugging memory management issue. Using the FFI provides more flexibility and is much more fun IMO.) >> Also, in more concrete terms: one goal of the least-authority work at >> <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/54997> is to remove >> ‘make-forkexec-constructor/container’ and the whole (gnu build shepherd) >> module. Jami is one of its last remaining users (adjusting it felt like >> beyond my abilities, precisely because it’s much more complex than the >> other services I adjusted). >> >> Could you take a look at that eventually, once this patch has been >> reviewed? > > I reviewed how that works, and it'd be easy; I just didn't see the > incentive yet (there's no composition needed for the service, and it'd > make the definition slightly less readable). If you tell me > mark+forkexec-constructor/container is going the way of the Dodo though, > that's a good enough incentive :-). Awesome. :-) Thanks for explaining! Ludo’.
