I have misplaced my log for this, but it is easy to reproduce: configure offloading on master and build-machine, comment the entire content of the file which holds the build-machines, run "guix build hello" and see the error. This should even work when you haven't configured offloading, just with an empty machines file.
Dear, Digging in the bug tracker, I found this bug report [1]. Could you expand on the issue? And report the error message? Thank you in advance. Best regards, simon [1] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=25952
Dear, This bug [1] had not been commented since the last 3 years and it has been asked more info 3 weeks ago. Therefore, I am closing. Feel free to reopen if I misunderstand something. [1] http://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/25952 All the best, simon
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 812 bytes --] Simon, zimoun 写道: > This bug [1] had not been commented since the last 3 years and > it has > been asked more info 3 weeks ago. The issue is that files such as /etc/guix/machines.scm (but this applies equally to /etc/guix/acl & so on) are expected to evaluate to a sexp. An empty file does not a valid sexp make, so Guix throws an prickly backtrace @ your face & dies. This is unlike most other configuration formats where an empty file or one consisting entirely of comments is a no-op. We should decide whether ‘’ is a valid sexp (oh dear, philosophy) or throw something softer at people. > Therefore, I am closing. Feel free to reopen if I misunderstand > something. I think this bug should remain open until it's decided. What you? Kind regards, T G-R [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]
Hi Tobias, On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 22:32, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr> wrote: > The issue is that files such as /etc/guix/machines.scm (but this > applies equally to /etc/guix/acl & so on) are expected to evaluate > to a sexp. > > An empty file does not a valid sexp make, so Guix throws an > prickly backtrace @ your face & dies. This is unlike most other > configuration formats where an empty file or one consisting > entirely of comments is a no-op. Hum? I am not sure to get the point. Are we talking about this kind of situations, e.g., --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- touch /tmp/empty.scm guix package -m /tmp/empty.scm -p /tmp/empy --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- or --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- echo ";; hello" > /tmp/comment.scm guix package -m /tmp/comment.scm -p /tmp/comment --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- or --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- echo "(define x 42)" > /tmp/answer.scm guix package -m /tmp/answer.scm -p /tmp/answer --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- ? > We should decide whether ‘’ is a valid sexp (oh dear, philosophy) > or throw something softer at people. Throw something more "helping" than e.g., --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- Backtrace: 1 (primitive-load "/home/simon/.config/guix/current/bin/g…") In guix/ui.scm: 1936:12 0 (run-guix-command _ . _) guix/ui.scm:1936:12: In procedure run-guix-command: In procedure struct-vtable: Wrong type argument in position 1 (expecting struct): #<unspecified> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- ? > > Therefore, I am closing. Feel free to reopen if I misunderstand > > something. > > I think this bug should remain open until it's decided. What you? Well, it is a variant of Cunningham's Law, isn't it? :-) So, let reopen it and decide on the philosophical dilemma. ;-) Cheers, simon
Dear, On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 00:43, zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 22:32, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr> wrote: > >> The issue is that files such as /etc/guix/machines.scm (but this >> applies equally to /etc/guix/acl & so on) are expected to evaluate >> to a sexp. >> >> An empty file does not a valid sexp make, so Guix throws an >> prickly backtrace @ your face & dies. This is unlike most other >> configuration formats where an empty file or one consisting >> entirely of comments is a no-op. > > Hum? I am not sure to get the point. Are we talking about this kind > of situations, e.g., > > touch /tmp/empty.scm > guix package -m /tmp/empty.scm -p /tmp/empy > > or > > echo ";; hello" > /tmp/comment.scm > guix package -m /tmp/comment.scm -p /tmp/comment > > or > > echo "(define x 42)" > /tmp/answer.scm > guix package -m /tmp/answer.scm -p /tmp/answer > > > ? If we are talking about such cases, I think we can close this bug report. >> We should decide whether ‘’ is a valid sexp (oh dear, philosophy) >> or throw something softer at people. > > Throw something more "helping" than e.g., > > Backtrace: > 1 (primitive-load "/home/simon/.config/guix/current/bin/g…") > In guix/ui.scm: > 1936:12 0 (run-guix-command _ . _) > > guix/ui.scm:1936:12: In procedure run-guix-command: > In procedure struct-vtable: Wrong type argument in position 1 > (expecting struct): #<unspecified> > > ? More helping as suggested for example in this message: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2020-09/msg00125.html> If yes, the bug report should be renamed. And probably goes to the Guile bug tracker. :-) All the best, simon
Hi, For reference: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/25952>. On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 at 19:26, zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 00:43, zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 22:32, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr> wrote: >> >>> The issue is that files such as /etc/guix/machines.scm (but this >>> applies equally to /etc/guix/acl & so on) are expected to evaluate >>> to a sexp. >>> >>> An empty file does not a valid sexp make, so Guix throws an >>> prickly backtrace @ your face & dies. This is unlike most other >>> configuration formats where an empty file or one consisting >>> entirely of comments is a no-op. >> >> Hum? I am not sure to get the point. Are we talking about this kind >> of situations, e.g., >> >> touch /tmp/empty.scm >> guix package -m /tmp/empty.scm -p /tmp/empy >> >> or >> >> echo ";; hello" > /tmp/comment.scm >> guix package -m /tmp/comment.scm -p /tmp/comment >> >> or >> >> echo "(define x 42)" > /tmp/answer.scm >> guix package -m /tmp/answer.scm -p /tmp/answer >> >> >> ? > > If we are talking about such cases, I think we can close this bug > report. > > >>> We should decide whether ‘’ is a valid sexp (oh dear, philosophy) >>> or throw something softer at people. >> >> Throw something more "helping" than e.g., >> >> Backtrace: >> 1 (primitive-load "/home/simon/.config/guix/current/bin/g…") >> In guix/ui.scm: >> 1936:12 0 (run-guix-command _ . _) >> >> guix/ui.scm:1936:12: In procedure run-guix-command: >> In procedure struct-vtable: Wrong type argument in position 1 >> (expecting struct): #<unspecified> >> >> ? > > More helping as suggested for example in this message: > > <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2020-09/msg00125.html> > > If yes, the bug report should be renamed. And probably goes to the > Guile bug tracker. :-) What do we do? What is the next action? Close? If not, please provide explanations about what the issue really is and what could be the plan to fix it. :-) Cheers, simon
Hi Tobias, On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 22:32, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr> wrote: > zimoun 写道: >> This bug [1] had not been commented since the last 3 years and it has >> been asked more info 3 weeks ago. > > The issue is that files such as /etc/guix/machines.scm (but this applies > equally to /etc/guix/acl & so on) are expected to evaluate to a sexp. > > An empty file does not a valid sexp make, so Guix throws an prickly backtrace > @ your face & dies. This is unlike most other configuration formats where an > empty file or one consisting entirely of comments is a no-op. > > We should decide whether ‘’ is a valid sexp (oh dear, philosophy) or throw > something softer at people. > >> Therefore, I am closing. Feel free to reopen if I misunderstand something. > > I think this bug should remain open until it's decided. What you? This bug [1] had been initially opened on March, 3rd 2017 then commented for the first time [2] on May, 3rd 2020 and closed [3] on May, 25th 2020. Then reopen the same day [4] with this “philosophical” question about: is empty ’’ a valid sexp? On May, 26th 2020 [5], I provided more examples. From my understanding, «throw something softer» should be done on the Guile side, as suggested by [6] on September, 13rd 2020. Personally, I do not see what could be the next action [7]? Therefore, if no more explanations about what the issue really is and what be the plan to fix it, I will close it. WDYT? All the best, simon 1: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/25952#0> 2: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/25952#1> 3: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/25952#3> 4: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/25952#4> 5: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/25952#6> 6: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2020-09/msg00125.html> 7: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/25952#8>
Hi Simon,
zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:
> Hi Tobias,
>
> On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 22:32, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr> wrote:
>> zimoun 写道:
>>> This bug [1] had not been commented since the last 3 years and it has
>>> been asked more info 3 weeks ago.
>>
>> The issue is that files such as /etc/guix/machines.scm (but this applies
>> equally to /etc/guix/acl & so on) are expected to evaluate to a sexp.
>>
>> An empty file does not a valid sexp make, so Guix throws an prickly backtrace
>> @ your face & dies. This is unlike most other configuration formats where an
>> empty file or one consisting entirely of comments is a no-op.
>>
>> We should decide whether ‘’ is a valid sexp (oh dear, philosophy) or throw
>> something softer at people.
>>
>>> Therefore, I am closing. Feel free to reopen if I misunderstand something.
>>
>> I think this bug should remain open until it's decided. What you?
>
> This bug [1] had been initially opened on March, 3rd 2017 then commented
> for the first time [2] on May, 3rd 2020 and closed [3] on May, 25th
> 2020. Then reopen the same day [4] with this “philosophical” question
> about: is empty ’’ a valid sexp? On May, 26th 2020 [5], I provided more
> examples.
>
>>From my understanding, «throw something softer» should be done on the
> Guile side, as suggested by [6] on September, 13rd 2020.
>
> Personally, I do not see what could be the next action [7]? Therefore,
> if no more explanations about what the issue really is and what be the
> plan to fix it, I will close it. WDYT?
What happens:
# mv /etc/guix/machines.scm{,.bak}
$ guix build hello --no-substitutes
-> Download sources and builds locally. OK!
# touch /etc/guix/machines.scm
$ guix build hello --no-substitutes
-> Builds locally. OK!
Seems the original issue has been resolved since.
Closing.
Maxim