On sam., 03 sept. 2022 at 19:27, Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> wrote:

  * if some but not all channels are available, and there is at least
    one updated channel --> log the missing channels, and update the
    channels that _are_ available (but don't 'ignore' the missing
    channels by removing them!).

What do you mean by «but don't 'ignore' the missing channels by removing
them!»?  Do you mean keep the last revision locally known for this
channel?

I'm not sure what you're asking, because of the negatives.

With "but don't ignore [...] by [...]", I meant that, yes.

If you meant "don't ignore [...] by [...]", then no, with 'ignoring by removing', I meant, literally removing them.  More concretely, a situation like this:

• In the channels.scm, two channels are declared: guix and guix-foo.
• User does "guix pull"; Guix downloads the source code of guix and guix-foo.
• Downloading guix failed (503).  As such, Guix decided to ignore the guix channel, by removing it from the list of channels to build. (The in-memory list I mean, I don't mean modifying the channels.smc file)
  
• Guix tries building the guix-foo channel and installing it, without the guix channel.
• This cannot work (the guix-foo channel uses modules from guix for basic stuff like G-exps, packages, coreutils, ..., and it was the removed guix channel that had things build-aux/build-self.scm which is required for pulling).

(It's not unlike double negatives! I first thought of the latter interpretation but on second thought you might have meant the former.)

Greetings,
Maxime.