From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id 2JZGBOdHsF4zewAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 04 May 2020 16:50:47 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id LWlGFPFHsF6CDwAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 04 May 2020 16:50:57 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142::17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BC23942E21 for ; Mon, 4 May 2020 16:30:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:40636 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jVdyw-0004Ot-LA for larch@yhetil.org; Mon, 04 May 2020 12:30:14 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45668) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jVdyk-0004Lp-Ko for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 04 May 2020 12:30:02 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:50510) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jVdyk-0005uW-7I for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 04 May 2020 12:30:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jVdyk-0000FG-2d for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 04 May 2020 12:30:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#41051: [guix-1.1.0] guix system failed Resent-From: Diego Nicola Barbato Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 04 May 2020 16:30:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 41051 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: wensheng xie Received: via spool by 41051-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B41051.1588609755858 (code B ref 41051); Mon, 04 May 2020 16:30:02 +0000 Received: (at 41051) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 May 2020 16:29:15 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33823 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jVdxz-0000Dk-F4 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 04 May 2020 12:29:15 -0400 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:55089) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jVdxy-0000DX-0k for 41051@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 04 May 2020 12:29:14 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E9C9240101 for <41051@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 4 May 2020 18:29:06 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.de; s=2017; t=1588609747; bh=17Nak86ctPEl47QeXIAft77FnOcxi6IwxBFFuLFhAPk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=EM2xFpwtYKewYc3xUAbZ9awVziQn0MHcFHpZh+iDHODnPe0gdBgnmribXhOGxi2Jg /iT5zlWiyQFYJuLXbP+x7RwNQVJixYGeHusqJv4oQJYWwFrgXm1VU4r/HV80iPvaE2 /zn3l4p6OvRLzLWcRbJSQ8n8VBx2L9IFGkwQgXSYAWZmaxYIMW9YG91sNO3ZWmb6YU MsQigk5BhbJh6I/HYrw7ScV4XoKG5dD3wNNAS8EMkA8kwb6XnypGjSp21fKuvpQwLR CdtNdWxCSSQOFvCeLjbGmF/CIXvFUkk0CQf3hN7YVH9scJafIh3+APARnGsEFEzvmI lSopZrGRf9OSg== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 49G7bQ4CqVz9rxK; Mon, 4 May 2020 18:29:06 +0200 (CEST) From: Diego Nicola Barbato References: Date: Mon, 04 May 2020 18:29:05 +0200 In-Reply-To: (wensheng xie's message of "Mon, 4 May 2020 10:03:15 +0000") Message-ID: <87368fhdf2.fsf@GlaDOS.home> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) X-BeenThere: bug-guix@gnu.org List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "41051@debbugs.gnu.org" <41051@debbugs.gnu.org> Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" X-Scanner: scn0 X-Spam-Score: 0.09 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail (rsa verify failed) header.d=posteo.de header.s=2017 header.b=EM2xFpwt; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (strict)" header.from=posteo.de (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org designates 2001:470:142::17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org X-Scan-Result: default: False [0.09 / 13.00]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; GENERIC_REPUTATION(0.00)[-0.4949399097873]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip6:2001:470:142::/48:c]; IP_REPUTATION_HAM(0.00)[asn: 22989(0.13), country: US(-0.00), ip: 2001:470:142::17(-0.49)]; DWL_DNSWL_BLOCKED(0.00)[2001:470:142::17:from]; R_DKIM_REJECT(1.00)[posteo.de:s=2017]; MX_GOOD(-0.50)[cached: eggs.gnu.org]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[posteo.de:-]; MAILLIST(-0.20)[mailman]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[hotmail.com]; FORGED_RECIPIENTS_MAILLIST(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:22989, ipnet:2001:470:142::/48, country:US]; TAGGED_FROM(0.00)[larch=yhetil.org]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[dnbarbato@posteo.de,bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; URIBL_BLOCKED(0.00)[gnu.org:email]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[41051@debbugs.gnu.org]; HAS_LIST_UNSUB(-0.01)[]; DNSWL_BLOCKED(0.00)[2001:470:142::17:from]; RCVD_COUNT_SEVEN(0.00)[9]; FORGED_SENDER_MAILLIST(0.00)[]; DMARC_POLICY_SOFTFAIL(0.10)[posteo.de : SPF not aligned (strict),none] X-TUID: yE05bUfpKB7L Hi, wensheng xie writes: > Hi, Marius: > > The problem is not reproduced after I did another 'guix pull'. I attached the information: > > 1. > root@guix ~# guix describe > Generation 4 May 04 2020 06:21:35 (current) > guix c563f88 > repository URL: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guix.git > branch: master > commit: c563f8887db23241922fabf62a4da5d1526a644f > > 2. config.scm is attached. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > From: Marius Bakke > Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2020 11:16 PM > To: wensheng xie; 41051@debbugs.gnu.org > Subject: Re: bug#41051: [guix-1.1.0] guix system failed > > Thanks for the report! > > wensheng xie writes: > >> The error: >> >> root@guix ~# guix system reconfigure /etc/config.scm >> The following derivation will be built: >> /gnu/store/g26kkrfd49y5wcz57x0xgkh97w997kmb-grub.cfg.drv >> building /gnu/store/g26kkrfd49y5wcz57x0xgkh97w997kmb-grub.cfg.drv... >> /gnu/store/2lnjrv5388727sw45jhrrsyf0140nrd2-system >> /gnu/store/gsxap47dgsjs6zvdim42j5lal5rfj10w-grub.cfg >> >> activating system... >> making '/gnu/store/2lnjrv5388727sw45jhrrsyf0140nrd2-system' the current system... >> setting up setuid programs in '/run/setuid-programs'... >> populating /etc from /gnu/store/hzhhbayyfxjqghxklawy8r8a1i8ws7pg-etc... >> The following derivation will be built: >> /gnu/store/6wy32ybajjrdn1nydvp1i0iai6x77jqc-install-bootloader.scm.drv >> building /gnu/store/6wy32ybajjrdn1nydvp1i0iai6x77jqc-install-bootloader.scm.drv... >> guix system: bootloader successfully installed on '/dev/sda' >> guix system: error: exception caught while executing 'eval' on service 'root': >> Unrecognized keyword: #:file-creation-mask > > Can you post the output of 'guix describe' and the config.scm you are > using? I can reproduce the error when upgrading (i.e. guix pull and guix system reconfigure) from commit 74c7f36 to commit aea6ab2. I believe this will always happen when upgrading from a commit before e3358a8 (gnu: shepherd: Update to 0.8.0.) to any commit starting from 4c0cc7b (services: syslog: Simplify 'start' method.). The latter commit changes the syslog-service-type to use a feature introduced in version 0.8.0 of the Shepherd (the #:file-creation-mask parameter of make-forkexec-constructor) so when Guix tries to load the new service definition the current Shepherd (0.7.0) doesn't recognise the new parameter and we get an error. The error is harmless since this happens after switching the system generation and installing the bootloader. But we should probably print a hint or warning, that some service definitions couldn't be loaded and that it might be necessary to reboot, instead of an error so that it doesn't look like reconfigure failed. Regards, Diego