From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: myglc2 Subject: bug#29072: The usability of Guix configurations Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2017 21:30:41 -0500 Message-ID: <86h8u6x1ke.fsf__45504.3693459176$1510021874$gmane$org@gmail.com> References: <868tfjw4is.fsf@gmail.com> <20171106221621.GA2534@jasmine.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53653) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eBtfO-0000oQ-96 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Nov 2017 21:31:07 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eBtfL-0007fL-5F for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Nov 2017 21:31:06 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:46311) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eBtfL-0007fA-1s for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Nov 2017 21:31:03 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eBtfK-0008CJ-I8 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Nov 2017 21:31:02 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20171106221621.GA2534@jasmine.lan> (Leo Famulari's message of "Mon, 6 Nov 2017 17:16:21 -0500") 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: Guix-devel , 29072@debbugs.gnu.org On 11/06/2017 at 17:16 Leo Famulari writes: > On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 03:12:11PM -0500, myglc2 wrote: >> My system recently broke when I did an upgrade. I reported what I >> thought was a bug (bug#29072) but it turned out that, because qemu >> package code had been moved, my system configuration had become broken >> ;-( >> >> Confronted with my situation, helpful developers said "The package code >> was moved in commit xxx" (Leo) and "maybe you have a mistake in your >> config (Efraim)." > > I'm sorry that my comment was not enough on its own! > >> Once I understood what had happened I wondered, "Gee, I have been using >> guix for 18 months so why didn't I figure this out myself." ;-) >> >> But a less committed user might say, "Wow, Guix breaks at random, error >> messages are hard to understand, and support is difficult." :-( > > Good point. > >> ISTM this raises issues and questions about Guix configuration >> usability: > > Indeed. > >> Guix config errors are reported as raw scheme errors which are not >> user-friendly, except, perhaps, to guile users ;-) Could we improve this >> situation by adding config troubleshooting guidance to the doc? > > Yes, we do try to add helpful error messages, although obviously there > is a lot more work to be done. [...] > >> Guix config errors consume meaningful amounts of user and support >> effort. I say this because a) it took quite a few iterations to figure >> out what was wrong in my situation, and b) google search for '"no code >> for module" guix' finds 613 hits, which will no doubt grow linearly with >> number of Guix users unless something is done. So I wonder, could an >> error handler that translates into more user-friendly terms reduce user >> frustration, increase the rate of user self help, reduce support load, >> and effectively pay for itself? > > That would be awesome! > >> Are the current Guix config errors usable by the average GNU/Linux >> distribution user? If not, don't they need to be improved before we call >> it 1.0? > > Based on how much time it's possible to spend on IRC helping people, I'd > say there is lots of room for improvement in this area. > >> Does this mean that package code must not be moved after 1.0? > > A couple thoughts... it would be nice if the GuixSD configuration > example templates used a filename agnostic method of resolving module > imports. I'm not a strong enough Schemer to evaluate the situation or > suggest a solution, but I think that the filenames should not be > relevant at that level. Perhaps one could use > 'specification->package+output', > as demonstrated in the documentation of package manifests: > > https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/manual/html_node/Invoking-guix-package.html > There is a parallel solution >> Finally: Should I close bug#29072? ;-) > > The problem of the missing QEMU patch is resolved. The broader issue of > confusing error messages could be continued here, or elsewhere. It's up > to you :)