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 20:56:48 -0500 Message-ID: <86o9oex34v.fsf__33293.8428655781$1510019835$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]:44762) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eBt8T-0002z6-0P for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Nov 2017 20:57:06 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eBt8P-0006IX-U6 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Nov 2017 20:57:05 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:46288) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eBt8P-0006IS-Qn for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Nov 2017 20:57:01 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eBt8P-0007Lh-Ja for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Nov 2017 20:57:01 -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 Please note: these replies are separated by topics in an effort to make the threads more topical ... On 11/06/2017 at 17:16 Leo Famulari writes: > On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 03:12:11PM -0500, myglc2 wrote: [...] >> 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. I didn't mean this point critically. Rather as a statement of fact. When I said ... >> Could we improve this situation by adding config troubleshooting >> guidance to the doc? ... I was thinking something like ... vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv Troubleshooting your config file: If you get an error like: ice-9/boot-9.scm:[...] no code for module (gnu packages ) You have either specified a package name that does not exist, or your (use-package-modules ) does not contain the name of a package module that contains the definition of . You can determine which, if any, module contains a package definition by yada yada yada ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ... thinking that then there would be a search hit in the doc for 'no code for module' which might enable some users to understand what they are doing wrong. WDYT? - George