bug#56289: "guix shell -f guix2.scm" fails always

bug#56289: "guix shell -f guix2.scm" fails always

[Maxime Devos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 719 bytes --]

Put the folllowing in "oops-guix.scm":

(use-modules (gnu packages))
(specifications->packages '("hello"))

then do: "guix shell -f oops-guix.scm" to make an environment
with "hello".  I get:

> guix shell: warning: no packages specified; creating an empty environment
$ which hello
> /home/regulator/.guix-profile/bin/hello # <-- not from the new environment!

Or even simpler: do "guix shell -f non-existing-file.scm":
> guix shell: warning: no packages specified; creating an empty environment

Looks like "-f" is ignored entirely?

Version information:
$ guix --version
guix (GNU Guix) 0

(Didn't there use to be a commit?  Is confirmed on #guix as
reproducible ...)

Greetings,
Maxime.


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

bug#56289: "guix shell -f guix2.scm" fails always

[Liliana Marie Prikler]

Am Dienstag, dem 28.06.2022 um 22:47 +0200 schrieb Maxime Devos:
> Put the folllowing in "oops-guix.scm":
> 
> (use-modules (gnu packages))
> (specifications->packages '("hello"))
> 
> then do: "guix shell -f oops-guix.scm" to make an environment
> with "hello".  I get:
> 
> > guix shell: warning: no packages specified; creating an empty
> > environment
> $ which hello
> > /home/regulator/.guix-profile/bin/hello # <-- not from the new
> > environment!
> 
> Or even simpler: do "guix shell -f non-existing-file.scm":
> > guix shell: warning: no packages specified; creating an empty
> > environment
> 
> Looks like "-f" is ignored entirely?
Have you tried specifying a file that actually contains a package (not
a manifest)?  That being said, the error reporting could be better :)

bug#56289: "guix shell -f guix2.scm" fails always

[Maxime Devos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 574 bytes --]

Liliana Marie Prikler schreef op wo 29-06-2022 om 08:19 [+0200]:
> > Looks like "-f" is ignored entirely?
> Have you tried specifying a file that actually contains a package
> (not
> a manifest)?

None of the examples contain a manifest, oops-guix.scm actually
contains a list of packages as mentioned previously (*).  And the exact
same thing happens if a package is used instead of a list of packages.

(*):

> > Put the folllowing in "oops-guix.scm":
> > 
> > (use-modules (gnu packages))
> > (specifications->packages '("hello"))

Greetings,
Maxime.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

bug#56289: "guix shell -f guix2.scm" fails always

[Liliana Marie Prikler]

Am Mittwoch, dem 29.06.2022 um 11:10 +0200 schrieb Maxime Devos:
> Liliana Marie Prikler schreef op wo 29-06-2022 om 08:19 [+0200]:
> > > Looks like "-f" is ignored entirely?
> > Have you tried specifying a file that actually contains a package
> > (not a manifest)?
> 
> None of the examples contain a manifest, oops-guix.scm actually
> contains a list of packages as mentioned previously (*).
My bad, I read that as specifications->manifest.  Note that for
specifications->package, you could simply specify hello on the command
line.

Having tested your file now, I can say that guix shell builds hello as
expected, whereas with specifications->manifest, it produces a lovely
backtrace (which is more or less what one ought to expect).

> And the exact same thing happens if a package is used instead of a
> list of packages.
One thing to check here is whether a cache might be interfering.  I
think it is an already known bug, that the file itself is not key in
the cache, which you can work around by specifying --rebuild-cache.

Cheers

bug#56289: "guix shell -f guix2.scm" fails always

[Maxime Devos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1311 bytes --]

Liliana Marie Prikler schreef op wo 29-06-2022 om 11:22 [+0200]:
> > And the exact same thing happens if a package is used instead of a
> > list of packages.
> One thing to check here is whether a cache might be interfering.  I
> think it is an already known bug, that the file itself is not key in
> the cache, which you can work around by specifying --rebuild-cache.

Whatever non-existent file name I use, I don't get an error message but
the warning ‘guix shell: warning: no packages specified; creating an
empty environment’, so this doesn't look like a cache issue to me.

However, if I do:

$ LANGUAGE=en_US guix shell --rebuild-cache -f nn-fefefefexistent.scm
guix shell: error: failed to load 'nn-fefefefexistent.scm': No such file or directory

$ LANGUAGE=en_US guix shell --rebuild-cache -f nn-fefefefexistent.scm
guix shell: error: failed to load 'nn-fefefefexistent.scm': No such file or directory

$ LANGUAGE=en_US guix shell --rebuild-cache -f mm-fefefefexistent.scm 
guix shell: error: failed to load 'mm-fefefefexistent.scm': No such file or directory

$ LANGUAGE=en_US guix shell -f mm-fefefefexistent.scm
guix shell: error: failed to load 'mm-fefefefexistent.scm': No such file or directory

so looks like there's a cache issue!

Greetings,
Maxime.


 * 

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

bug#56289: "guix shell -f guix2.scm" fails always

[Liliana Marie Prikler]

Am Mittwoch, dem 29.06.2022 um 11:40 +0200 schrieb Maxime Devos:
> Liliana Marie Prikler schreef op wo 29-06-2022 om 11:22 [+0200]:
> > > And the exact same thing happens if a package is used instead of
> > > a list of packages.
> > One thing to check here is whether a cache might be interfering.  I
> > think it is an already known bug, that the file itself is not key
> > in the cache, which you can work around by specifying --rebuild-
> > cache.
> 
> Whatever non-existent file name I use, I don't get an error message
> but the warning ‘guix shell: warning: no packages specified; creating
> an empty environment’, so this doesn't look like a cache issue to me.
That is exactly the cache issue, though.  Once ‘guix shell -f’
“succeeds” (even with an empty environment), subsequent invocations
lacking ‘--rebuild-cache’ ignore the file completely and serve from
cache.


Cheers