From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: swedebugia Subject: bug#33261: [substitute-urls] Fails when given only "berlin.guixsd.org" Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 21:48:55 +0100 Message-ID: <62e5ca73-88e9-7e50-ea0c-f4a8f4c50dbf@riseup.net> References: <7461b803-d8af-2e76-358e-35592f3ca995@riseup.net> <20181105191322.64a47ea0@alma-ubu> <20181105194618.GA18731@jasmine.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50908) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gJlp0-0005wN-Kv for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2018 15:50:07 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gJlox-0005KZ-2C for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2018 15:50:06 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:59694) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gJlow-0005JP-Om for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2018 15:50:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gJlow-0002tE-GP for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2018 15:50:02 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20181105194618.GA18731@jasmine.lan> Content-Language: en-US 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 , 33261@debbugs.gnu.org, bjoern.hoefling@bjoernhoefling.de Hi On 2018-11-05 20:46, Leo Famulari wrote: > On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 07:13:22PM +0100, Björn Höfling wrote: >> I would not consider this a bug: It clearly says that it is not a >> proper URI. Also in the documentation all URLs/URIs are written in the >> form of >> >> PROTOCOL://SERVER/PATH. > I agree that it's not a bug, but perhaps it's more like a wishlist item. > > Ideally, users would not need to concern themselves with implementation > details like protocol selection. > > Guix could offer a more unified or simpler interface for authorizing and > selecting substitute servers, and it would handle server addresses, > communication protocols, and key authorization. Currently it's very > ad-hoc. +1 It is error prone and hard to understand for newcomers what is going on behind the scenes. I wrote this report from the perspective of a newcomer - ideally they should not receive any errors at all if you ask me. Do you have any ideas how to implement anything better? A newt-ncurses interface maybe? -- Cheers Swedebugia