From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1_?= =?UTF-8?Q?=C4=8Cech?= Subject: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 07:33:30 +0100 Message-ID: <20170307063330.bhv2ugsvi3qeofu5@penguin> References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> <877f429kju.fsf@gnu.org> <20170306213434.GA25316@jasmine> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="7hqsk6ajg6oomf4b" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36845) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cl8hC-0003ji-14 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 01:34:06 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cl8h8-0003rS-VH for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 01:34:06 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:45310) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cl8h8-0003rN-S4 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 01:34:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cl8h8-0003lh-Fj for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 01:34:02 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170306213434.GA25316@jasmine> List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Leo Famulari Cc: 25852@debbugs.gnu.org --7hqsk6ajg6oomf4b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 04:34:34PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: >On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 10:12:21PM +0100, Ludovic Court=E8s wrote: >> Leo Famulari skribis: >> >> > In my opinion, the recent bug #25775 (Can't install packages after guix >> > pull) [0] exposed a sort of meta-bug: there are a significant number of >> > users who were still using the guix-daemon from 0.10.0. >> > >> > It seems unlikely that they have been updating all of root's >> > packages except for the guix package. Rather, I bet they never updated >> > root's packages at all, for ~1 year. > >They could have been stuck with an old daemon if they copied the systemd >or upstart service files we provide. > >That problem should be fixed by 613d0895b92c677e0639d5e77c55043e38e020c8 >(build: Don't embed absolute paths in .service and .conf service >files.). That is right. But 1) there was no release with this "fix" 2) I (as distro package maintainer) didn't take this patch manually as it is fragile and hacky. Have you considered fresh guix installation? Best regards, S_W --7hqsk6ajg6oomf4b Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEDOrssfr9jDQthC2PSiPjT6AzQ20FAli+VCUACgkQSiPjT6Az Q20T0A/+KBjKKjFb4M1GEQlf4gVv8KJRWTdz5fYFF4UC+Rx3AlgC+d5zU6aW0K1g EquIQN7wWcP5Mq+6pXVrdgu1JnJS9OCTbG/hVsirs1OGcurzLl19EWkhkJj4NW2x X9jq9rDj3yiScGoBeVm+ln1rWz+64e3WAQRgEjU5RbtCylZEta8plQvkysaqXKEp vA6foaeZ/MHNcYgJokt64a4kGc5rbD9W7dABTf9V6mnSLm+RAYqO0eYHdEMGSETc PvBOUZ2567Hqyb1b4mf2TFeicLcoH9EBaUVHM1lPyQKZSrG+e71jWKKChdQotSC1 ebGhydHZcHXU9/Wzh0HqxssI0HtiZZW0Jb1TNenwa6GQoOPDu8Qr/1NCth1dxtFu zYdb5NaRgdSHZEUD3cxRNoOrQYMef3qxmYDDh2uLwVrAVZFyvPP5PcIV/lIl0lHm KZWxNH3yl6vIadysGfxnWg+Qfbw2fj2wjcgHuuKHuDusWtlxU8Fiel78VTJ9QJDY XPfyFo5bFxT7niCH5Sd4qdC7V+unC9C5Cn+Zd1Q7/+aiE9CpVcvNDNXwYGLlcYmq eD1gbkVsY3vlvhuqK9YDAfN38MBBJo0xRi9kpQJa8WXfCK4ypPH3kGajKXmBejrr 09jScaUN3V1/6AI6Fdlnfo3N4Lxgk57K1fxcuZ6pIMFmmv13U3g= =EKhW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --7hqsk6ajg6oomf4b--