From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 11:35:58 +0100
Message-ID: <87efy9gyr5.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> <877f429kju.fsf@gnu.org>
	<87wpc1k0e5.fsf@netris.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40410)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1clCUL-0000kC-2t
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 05:37:06 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1clCUH-0006BB-Vc
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 05:37:05 -0500
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:45428)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1clCUH-0006B6-Rj
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 05:37:01 -0500
Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1clCUH-0002lN-LF
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 05:37:01 -0500
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.25852.B25852.148888297110556@debbugs.gnu.org>
In-Reply-To: <87wpc1k0e5.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Tue, 07
	Mar 2017 02:32:18 -0500")
List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guix/>
List-Post: <mailto:bug-guix@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "bug-Guix" <bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>
Cc: 25852@debbugs.gnu.org

Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> skribis:

> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes:
>
>> Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> skribis:
>>
>>> In my opinion, the recent bug #25775 (Can't install packages after guix
>>> pull) [0] exposed a sort of meta-bug: there are a significant number of
>>> users who were still using the guix-daemon from 0.10.0.
>>>
>>> It seems unlikely that they have been updating all of root's
>>> packages except for the guix package. Rather, I bet they never updated
>>> root's packages at all, for ~1 year.
>>>
>>> I think this is a serious documentation bug.
>>
>> I=E2=80=99m not sure documentation would help.
>>
>> Software like Firefox handles that by calling home to know its latest
>> version, but I=E2=80=99m not sure we want to have that happen automatica=
lly.
>>
>> Thoughts on how we could address this?
>
> We could simply issue a warning if the version of guix currently in use
> is more than N hours old, on the assumption that after N hours it's
> likely to be stale.  The default value of N might be in the range 48-96
> (2-4 days).  A quick perusal through the recent commit log on our master
> branch indicates that it's quite rare for 4 days to pass without a
> security update.
>
> What do you think?

That sounds like an easy and reasonable approach.

I wonder what would be the best place to emit this warning.  Upon =E2=80=98=
guix
package -i=E2=80=99 maybe?

Ludo=E2=80=99.