From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id dS8ZFFoNtF66NAAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 07 May 2020 13:30:02 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id gI9xH2YNtF4pVwAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 07 May 2020 13:30:14 +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 4A8BD940B0F for ; Thu, 7 May 2020 13:30:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:50866 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jWgbL-00039Y-V0 for larch@yhetil.org; Thu, 07 May 2020 09:30:11 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58712) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jWgbD-00039M-9U for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 07 May 2020 09:30:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:59102) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jWgbD-0003g7-00 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 07 May 2020 09:30:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jWgbC-0007Y4-R3 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 07 May 2020 09:30:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#41116: Guix deploy fails with new version of Herd Resent-From: Diego Nicola Barbato Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 07 May 2020 13:30:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 41116 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Received: via spool by 41116-done@debbugs.gnu.org id=D41116.158885817828951 (code D ref 41116); Thu, 07 May 2020 13:30:02 +0000 Received: (at 41116-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 May 2020 13:29:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42415 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jWgan-0007Wt-Ug for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 May 2020 09:29:38 -0400 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:48647) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jWgam-0007Wc-AR for 41116-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 May 2020 09:29:36 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72C252400FF for <41116-done@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 7 May 2020 15:29:30 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.de; s=2017; t=1588858170; bh=+ICI1YhqyD7EmL5lZ0Mado+Y5TS6UkKtpxdyo733/xo=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=Bwm7J2U3JybFpl6jR4mPMo4zkhDTxjwSjexDk9HhFuSc0pq1uZKJTVjg/HQW5QLk3 HoiF6H+2ivvXjCY9vh31L28Ibvkow1UwQze7pXpLFw2SFvyUDFESSK/EpuuuzEblRy QMrltkyMY10cqgbQBzpKVrfEjnkX1E+CciK8d2hrWmgOWhVKfoMwW7S0kJQMSSQDPs z4f2j0tjPnInKxikGZZgNx6rAOm8as5nrTEiEI9Y7jnm32Hvn9dg3/cFzguST7+gLB 3NlwEZwuShj9QPjXP5VKmLsSPU9XLWyr83x+3fz0rZ+CHuWLvwcP+f49vHqHxLaa4x 7z9fYNBKKlvxw== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 49HvSn4rXbz6tmp; Thu, 7 May 2020 15:29:29 +0200 (CEST) From: Diego Nicola Barbato References: <877dxog0wf.fsf@komputilo.eu> <87pnbg3coi.fsf@devup.no> <871rnwdj5p.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 07 May 2020 15:29:29 +0200 In-Reply-To: <871rnwdj5p.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Thu, 07 May 2020 14:27:46 +0200") Message-ID: <875zd7na9y.fsf@GlaDOS.home> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: 41116-done@debbugs.gnu.org, Alex Sassmannshausen 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=Bwm7J2U3; 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]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; GENERIC_REPUTATION(0.00)[-0.49812508760462]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip6:2001:470:142::/48:c]; IP_REPUTATION_HAM(0.00)[asn: 22989(0.11), country: US(-0.00), ip: 2001:470:142::17(-0.50)]; DWL_DNSWL_FAIL(0.00)[2001:470:142::17:server fail]; R_DKIM_REJECT(1.00)[posteo.de:s=2017]; MX_GOOD(-0.50)[cached: eggs.gnu.org]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[posteo.de:-]; MAILLIST(-0.20)[mailman]; FORGED_RECIPIENTS_MAILLIST(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_FAIL(0.00)[2001:470:142::17:server fail]; 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,fastmail.com:email]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[41116-done@debbugs.gnu.org]; HAS_LIST_UNSUB(-0.01)[]; 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: zRvdvLbGRkmU Hey, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > Hello Alex & Marius, > > Marius Bakke skribis: > >> Alex Sassmannshausen via Bug reports for GNU Guix >> writes: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I maintain a number of servers using Guix deploy. It seems that the >>> recent upgrade to Herd in Guix, and specifically commit >>> 4c0cc7bed3de2c0e2d3a6e95b88693941e839eec might have introduced a bug. >>> >>> From my testing, guix deploy currently consistently fails with: >>> -----------------8<----------------------------->8------------------- >>> ice-9/boot-9.scm:1667:16: In procedure raise-exception: >>> ERROR: >>> 1. &inferior-exception: >>> arguments: (srfi-34 #" "Unrecognized keyword" () (#:file-creation-mask))= ] 7eff2bd7be00>>) >>> inferior: #f >>> stack: () >>> -----------------8<----------------------------->8------------------- >>> >>> A workaround is to build the system configuration locally on the target >>> server, then to reconfigure. It will still error at the same place, but >>> at this point, after restarting the server, the new version of Herd will >>> be running and both deploy and reconfigure will work. >>> >>> I don't know what a good solution to this could be, but it may be >>> something we need to consider in future development of Herd. >> >> This issue has been reported by a number of users on IRC. I think the >> problem is that the the #:file-creation-mask keyword requires support >> from the running Shepherd, which may not have it yet. I think we should >> revert commit 4c0cc7bed3de2c0e2d3a6e95b88693941e839eec until we find a >> smooth upgrade path. Can you try it and push if that fixes guix deploy? > > I=E2=80=99ve reverted the patch in 5aa4d2dcf2f4f8786358feb45338893ed08a4c= d9. > > Diego: I guess we can reinstate the patch =E2=80=9Clater=E2=80=9D, once S= hepherd 0.8 can > be considered widespread. I'm sorry I broke reconfigure and deploy. I didn't consider testing upgrading from before Shepherd 0.8 to after my change and I didn't even think of deploy. Going forth I'll leave messing with core functionality to the pros. > More importantly, we should handle service reload failures more > gracefully, as proposed in , > for both =E2=80=98reconfigure=E2=80=99 and =E2=80=98deploy=E2=80=99. Regards, Diego