* bug#29072: The usability of Guix configurations [not found] <868tfjw4is.fsf@gmail.com> @ 2017-11-06 22:16 ` Leo Famulari [not found] ` <20171106221621.GA2534@jasmine.lan> 2017-11-07 10:23 ` Ludovic Courtès 2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Leo Famulari @ 2017-11-06 22:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: myglc2; +Cc: Guix-devel, 29072 [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3671 bytes --] 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. As far as I can tell, the issue was related to the fact that you are using Guix by building it from source and re-using the same build directory, which may contain stale compiled .go files. In this case, there was a leftover qemu.go, which shadowed the correct file, virtualization.go. This is a useful development technique but not how Guix is supposed to be deployed and updated. `guix pull && guix package --upgrade` is still what we recommend and support. If you want to deploy Guix by building it "by hand", I recommend using a fresh Git checkout and directory each time you build it. That way, you can be sure to avoid this class of error (stale module references in leftover .go files), which is well-known to the seasoned Guix developers but totally confounding for everyone else. > 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 > 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 :) [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <20171106221621.GA2534@jasmine.lan>]
* bug#29072: The usability of Guix configurations [not found] ` <20171106221621.GA2534@jasmine.lan> @ 2017-11-06 23:26 ` myglc2 2017-11-07 1:56 ` myglc2 2017-11-07 2:30 ` myglc2 2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: myglc2 @ 2017-11-06 23:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Leo Famulari; +Cc: Guix-devel, 29072 Please note: these replies separated by topics in an effort to make the threads more topical ... On 11/06/2017 at 22:16 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! Hey Leo, Please understand that don't mean this as a complaint your reply, which was helpful and I was very happy to receive. I am just trying to step back and think about the bigger picture. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* bug#29072: The usability of Guix configurations [not found] ` <20171106221621.GA2534@jasmine.lan> 2017-11-06 23:26 ` myglc2 @ 2017-11-07 1:56 ` myglc2 2017-11-07 2:30 ` myglc2 2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: myglc2 @ 2017-11-07 1:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Leo Famulari; +Cc: Guix-devel, 29072 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 <package name>) You have either specified a package name that does not exist, or your (use-package-modules <package module names>) does not contain the name of a package module that contains the definition of <package name>. 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* bug#29072: The usability of Guix configurations [not found] ` <20171106221621.GA2534@jasmine.lan> 2017-11-06 23:26 ` myglc2 2017-11-07 1:56 ` myglc2 @ 2017-11-07 2:30 ` myglc2 2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: myglc2 @ 2017-11-07 2:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Leo Famulari; +Cc: Guix-devel, 29072 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 :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* bug#29072: The usability of Guix configurations [not found] <868tfjw4is.fsf@gmail.com> 2017-11-06 22:16 ` bug#29072: The usability of Guix configurations Leo Famulari [not found] ` <20171106221621.GA2534@jasmine.lan> @ 2017-11-07 10:23 ` Ludovic Courtès 2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2017-11-07 10:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: myglc2; +Cc: Guix-devel, 29072 Hello, myglc2 <myglc2@gmail.com> skribis: > 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 > ;-( It should be noted that you were using a “developer setup”, specifically running Guix from a checkout with ./pre-inst-env and all. The issue with the stale module wouldn’t happen with “guix pull”, which is the recommended “user setup.” While I agree the situation is not ideal, I think we have to admit that developers can always shoot themselves in the foot, and that was one way of doing it. ;-) Thoughts? Ludo’. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* bug#29072: guix system: error: qemu-CVE-2017-7493.patch: patch not found @ 2017-10-30 20:34 myglc2 2017-11-06 20:12 ` bug#29072: The usability of Guix configurations myglc2 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: myglc2 @ 2017-10-30 20:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 29072 [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1029 bytes --] After a clean guix make, guix system build produced this error ... root@g1 ~/con/15# guix system --cores=4 --max-jobs=4 -K --on-error=debug build sys.scm guix system: error: qemu-CVE-2017-7493.patch: patch not found VERSION INFO: root@g1 ~/con/15# guix --version guix (GNU Guix) 0.13.0.4202-1f6f4 Copyright (C) 2017 the Guix authors License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it. There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. root@g1 ~/con/15# stat ~/.config/guix/latest | grep File: File: /root/.config/guix/latest -> /home/g1/src/guix/ root@g1 ~/con/15# git -C ~/.config/guix/latest describe v0.13.0-4202-g1f6f4c40c root@g1 ~/con/15# git -C ~/.config/guix/latest log -n 1 --oneline 1f6f4c40c (HEAD -> o-master, origin/master, origin/HEAD) gnu: Add r-tgconfig. root@g1 ~/con/15# git -C /home/g1/src/guix branch -av | grep '*' * o-master 1f6f4c40c gnu: Add r-tgconfig. SYS CONFIG: [-- Attachment #2: sys.scm --] [-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 2043 bytes --] ;;; GuixSD headless server (use-modules (gnu)) (use-service-modules networking ssh) (use-package-modules admin base certs cups disk emacs freeipmi linux qemu rsync screen ssh version-control wget xorg ) (operating-system (host-name "g1") (timezone "America/New_York") (locale "en_US.utf8") (kernel-arguments '("console=ttyS1,115200")) ;; RAID1 root using 1 NVMe SSD + 2 HDs (bootloader (grub-configuration (target "/dev/nvme0n1") (terminal-outputs '(console)) (terminal-inputs '(serial console)) (serial-speed 115200) )) (initrd (lambda (file-systems . rest) (apply base-initrd file-systems #:extra-modules '("raid1") rest))) (mapped-devices (list (mapped-device (source '("/dev/nvme0n1p1" "/dev/sda1" "/dev/sdb1")) (target "/dev/md3") (type raid-device-mapping)))) (file-systems (cons (file-system (title 'device) (device "/dev/md3") (mount-point "/") (type "ext4") (dependencies mapped-devices)) %base-file-systems)) (swap-devices '("/dev/nvme0n1p2" )) (users (cons* (user-account (name "g1") (group "users") (supplementary-groups '("wheel" "kvm")) (home-directory (string-append "/home/" name))) (user-account (name "admin") (group "users") (supplementary-groups '("wheel" "kvm")) (home-directory (string-append "/home/" name))) %base-user-accounts)) (packages (cons* cups emacs-no-x-toolkit emacs-guix emacs-zenburn-theme freeipmi git glibc-utf8-locales gnu-make mdadm magit nss-certs openssh parted qemu rsync screen smartmontools tree wget xauth %base-packages)) (services (cons* (dhcp-client-service) (ntp-service) (service openssh-service-type (openssh-configuration (x11-forwarding? #t))) (agetty-service (agetty-configuration (tty "ttyS1") (baud-rate "115200"))) %base-services))) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* bug#29072: The usability of Guix configurations 2017-10-30 20:34 bug#29072: guix system: error: qemu-CVE-2017-7493.patch: patch not found myglc2 @ 2017-11-06 20:12 ` myglc2 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: myglc2 @ 2017-11-06 20:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Guix-devel; +Cc: 29072 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)." 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." :-( ISTM this raises issues and questions about Guix configuration usability: 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? 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? 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? Does this mean that package code must not be moved after 1.0? Finally: Should I close bug#29072? ;-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-11-07 10:24 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <868tfjw4is.fsf@gmail.com> 2017-11-06 22:16 ` bug#29072: The usability of Guix configurations Leo Famulari [not found] ` <20171106221621.GA2534@jasmine.lan> 2017-11-06 23:26 ` myglc2 2017-11-07 1:56 ` myglc2 2017-11-07 2:30 ` myglc2 2017-11-07 10:23 ` Ludovic Courtès 2017-10-30 20:34 bug#29072: guix system: error: qemu-CVE-2017-7493.patch: patch not found myglc2 2017-11-06 20:12 ` bug#29072: The usability of Guix configurations myglc2
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).