* bug#57559: guix pull fails on http status code 503 @ 2022-09-03 11:21 André A. Gomes 2022-09-03 17:27 ` Maxime Devos 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: André A. Gomes @ 2022-09-03 11:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 57559 Hi Guix, --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- $ guix pull Updating channel 'nonguix' from Git repository at 'https://gitlab.com/nonguix/nonguix'... guix pull: error: Git error: unexpected http status code: 503 --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- It seems reasonable that if a certain channel isn't available, it should be possible to ignore it and proceed. Thanks. -- André A. Gomes "You cannot even find the ruins..." ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* bug#57559: guix pull fails on http status code 503 2022-09-03 11:21 bug#57559: guix pull fails on http status code 503 André A. Gomes @ 2022-09-03 17:27 ` Maxime Devos 2022-09-04 20:27 ` André A. Gomes 2022-09-05 8:21 ` zimoun 0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Maxime Devos @ 2022-09-03 17:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: André A. Gomes, 57559 [-- Attachment #1.1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1452 bytes --] On 03-09-2022 13:21, André A. Gomes wrote: > Hi Guix, > > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > $ guix pull > Updating channel 'nonguix' from Git repository at 'https://gitlab.com/nonguix/nonguix'... > guix pull: error: Git error: unexpected http status code: 503 > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > > It seems reasonable that if a certain channel isn't available, it should > be possible to ignore it and proceed. > > Thanks. More concretely: * if all channels are available --> ok, keep status quo * if no channels are available --> error, keep status quo * if some but not all channels are available, and there is at least one updated channel --> log the missing channels, and update the channels that _are_ available (but don't 'ignore' the missing channels by removing them!). * if some but not all channels are available, and none of the available channels were updated --> bail out, no progress was made and this might be due to lack of connectivity instead of lack of updates. ? Technically, your message can be interpreted as: if I only have a single channel, the Guix channel, and it isn't available, it should be possible to ignore it and proceed. (Proceed with what? It's the only channel, what is there to proceed with.) To actually implement this, we need to be precise. Greetings, Maxime [-- Attachment #1.1.1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2024 bytes --] [-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --] [-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 929 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 236 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* bug#57559: guix pull fails on http status code 503 2022-09-03 17:27 ` Maxime Devos @ 2022-09-04 20:27 ` André A. Gomes 2022-09-05 8:21 ` zimoun 1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: André A. Gomes @ 2022-09-04 20:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Maxime Devos; +Cc: 57559 Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> writes: > More concretely: > > * if all channels are available --> ok, keep status quo > * if no channels are available --> error, keep status quo > * if some but not all channels are available, and there is at least one > updated channel --> log the missing channels, and update the channels > that _are_ available (but don't 'ignore' the missing channels by > removing them!). > * if some but not all channels are available, and none of the available > channels were updated --> bail out, no progress was made and this > might be due to lack of connectivity instead of lack of updates. > > ? > > Technically, your message can be interpreted as: if I only have a single > channel, the Guix channel, and it isn't available, it should be possible > to ignore it and proceed. (Proceed with what? It's the only channel, > what is there to proceed with.) To actually implement this, we need to > be precise. I'm just a user and unfortunately I don't have a deep understanding of Guix's internals. Your concrete description seems to resonate with my expectations. Thanks. -- André A. Gomes "You cannot even find the ruins..." ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* bug#57559: guix pull fails on http status code 503 2022-09-03 17:27 ` Maxime Devos 2022-09-04 20:27 ` André A. Gomes @ 2022-09-05 8:21 ` zimoun 2022-09-05 20:20 ` Maxime Devos 1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: zimoun @ 2022-09-05 8:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Maxime Devos, André A. Gomes, 57559 Hi Maxime, On sam., 03 sept. 2022 at 19:27, Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> wrote: > * if some but not all channels are available, and there is at least > one updated channel --> log the missing channels, and update the > channels that _are_ available (but don't 'ignore' the missing > channels by removing them!). What do you mean by «but don't 'ignore' the missing channels by removing them!»? Do you mean keep the last revision locally known for this channel? Cheers, simon ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* bug#57559: guix pull fails on http status code 503 2022-09-05 8:21 ` zimoun @ 2022-09-05 20:20 ` Maxime Devos 2022-09-06 13:09 ` zimoun 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Maxime Devos @ 2022-09-05 20:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zimoun, André A. Gomes, 57559 [-- Attachment #1.1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1725 bytes --] On 05-09-2022 10:21, zimoun wrote: > On sam., 03 sept. 2022 at 19:27, Maxime Devos<maximedevos@telenet.be> wrote: > >> * if some but not all channels are available, and there is at least >> one updated channel --> log the missing channels, and update the >> channels that_are_ available (but don't 'ignore' the missing >> channels by removing them!). > What do you mean by «but don't 'ignore' the missing channels by removing > them!»? Do you mean keep the last revision locally known for this > channel? I'm not sure what you're asking, because of the negatives. With "but don't ignore [...] by [...]", I meant that, yes. If you meant "don't ignore [...] by [...]", then no, with 'ignoring by removing', I meant, literally removing them. More concretely, a situation like this: * In the channels.scm, two channels are declared: guix and guix-foo. * User does "guix pull"; Guix downloads the source code of guix and guix-foo. * Downloading guix failed (503). As such, Guix decided to ignore the guix channel, by removing it from the list of channels to build. (The in-memory list I mean, I don't mean modifying the channels.smc file) * Guix tries building the guix-foo channel and installing it, without the guix channel. * This cannot work (the guix-foo channel uses modules from guix for basic stuff like G-exps, packages, coreutils, ..., and it was the removed guix channel that had things build-aux/build-self.scm which is required for pulling). (It's not unlike double negatives! I first thought of the latter interpretation but on second thought you might have meant the former.) Greetings, Maxime. [-- Attachment #1.1.1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2667 bytes --] [-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --] [-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 929 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 236 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* bug#57559: guix pull fails on http status code 503 2022-09-05 20:20 ` Maxime Devos @ 2022-09-06 13:09 ` zimoun 2022-09-08 0:55 ` Maxime Devos 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: zimoun @ 2022-09-06 13:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Maxime Devos, André A. Gomes, 57559 Hi Maxime, On Mon, 05 Sep 2022 at 22:20, Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> wrote: > On 05-09-2022 10:21, zimoun wrote: >> On sam., 03 sept. 2022 at 19:27, Maxime Devos<maximedevos@telenet.be> wrote: >> >>> * if some but not all channels are available, and there is at least >>> one updated channel --> log the missing channels, and update the >>> channels that_are_ available (but don't 'ignore' the missing >>> channels by removing them!). >> What do you mean by «but don't 'ignore' the missing channels by removing >> them!»? Do you mean keep the last revision locally known for this >> channel? > > I'm not sure what you're asking, because of the negatives. [...] > (It's not unlike double negatives! I first thought of the latter > interpretation but on second thought you might have meant the former.) IIUC, you have hard time to parse the double-negative you wrote earlier in this thread. :-) > With "but don't ignore [...] by [...]", I meant that, yes. > > If you meant "don't ignore [...] by [...]", then no, with 'ignoring by > removing', I meant, literally removing them. More concretely, a > situation like this: > > * In the channels.scm, two channels are declared: guix and guix-foo. > * User does "guix pull"; Guix downloads the source code of guix and > guix-foo. > * Downloading guix failed (503). As such, Guix decided to ignore the > guix channel, by removing it from the list of channels to build. > (The in-memory list I mean, I don't mean modifying the channels.smc > file) > * Guix tries building the guix-foo channel and installing it, without > the guix channel. > * This cannot work (the guix-foo channel uses modules from guix for > basic stuff like G-exps, packages, coreutils, ..., and it was the > removed guix channel that had things build-aux/build-self.scm which > is required for pulling). The initial report by André is about: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- $ guix pull Updating channel 'nonguix' from Git repository at 'https://gitlab.com/nonguix/nonguix'... guix pull: error: Git error: unexpected http status code: 503 --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- So the situation is more likely: Guix from Savannah is reachable and guix-foo is not. For sure, we can discuss the case when Guix is unavailable. However, the 'guix channel is special; see all conditionals using ’guix-channel?’. Well, %default-guix-channel is somehow a corner use-case when the regular use-case seems about a failure of additional channels. Cheers, simon ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* bug#57559: guix pull fails on http status code 503 2022-09-06 13:09 ` zimoun @ 2022-09-08 0:55 ` Maxime Devos 2022-09-08 7:25 ` zimoun 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Maxime Devos @ 2022-09-08 0:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zimoun, André A. Gomes, 57559 [-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1058 bytes --] On 06-09-2022 15:09, zimoun wrote: > The initial report by André is about: > > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > $ guix pull > Updating channel 'nonguix' from Git repository at 'https://gitlab.com/nonguix/nonguix'... > guix pull: error: Git error: unexpected http status code: 503 > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > > So the situation is more likely: Guix from Savannah is reachable and > guix-foo is not. > > For sure, we can discuss the case when Guix is unavailable. However, > the 'guix channel is special; see all conditionals using ’guix-channel?’. > > Well, %default-guix-channel is somehow a corner use-case when the > regular use-case seems about a failure of additional channels. The ‘Guix is unavailable’ was just a simple example. For the example, you can replace it, with, say nonguix. Automatically removing the additional channels upon 503 is undesirable I'd think, though the error messages will be different. Greetings, Maixme. [-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --] [-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 929 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 236 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* bug#57559: guix pull fails on http status code 503 2022-09-08 0:55 ` Maxime Devos @ 2022-09-08 7:25 ` zimoun 2022-09-08 9:23 ` Maxime Devos 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: zimoun @ 2022-09-08 7:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Maxime Devos, André A. Gomes, 57559 Hi Maxime, On Thu, 08 Sep 2022 at 02:55, Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> wrote: >> Well, %default-guix-channel is somehow a corner use-case when the >> regular use-case seems about a failure of additional channels. > > The ‘Guix is unavailable’ was just a simple example. For the example, > you can replace it, with, say nonguix. Automatically removing the > additional channels upon 503 is undesirable I'd think, though the error > messages will be different. My point is that ’Guix is unavailable’ is special and it appears to me expected to raise an error. Other said, 1. if %default-guix-channel (or its mirrors) is unreachable, then stop the pull; as it is currently done. 2. if an extra channel is unreachable, then keep the last local revision of this channel and try the others. For sure, #2 can break the whole pull if something in the Guix channel changed *and* the channel depends on this something. But we cannot do more than raise an error. Cheers, simon ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* bug#57559: guix pull fails on http status code 503 2022-09-08 7:25 ` zimoun @ 2022-09-08 9:23 ` Maxime Devos 2022-09-08 11:11 ` zimoun 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Maxime Devos @ 2022-09-08 9:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zimoun, André A. Gomes, 57559 [-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1061 bytes --] On 08-09-2022 09:25, zimoun wrote: > My point is that ’Guix is unavailable’ is special and it appears to me > expected to raise an error. Other said, > > 1. if %default-guix-channel (or its mirrors) is unreachable, > then stop the pull; as it is currently done. > 2. if an extra channel is unreachable, > then keep the last local revision of this channel > and try the others. > > For sure, #2 can break the whole pull if something in the Guix channel > changed*and* the channel depends on this something. But we cannot do > more than raise an error. Looking at 'latest-channel-instances', the code for deciding what the latest version is, is the same for the guix channel and any other channel. As such, the 'Guix is unavailable' is, currently, not special. I suppose we could special-case it in latest-channel-instances to raise an error when Guix is unavailable, but I don't see why -- sometimes Savannah is down, would be nice to then at least be able to update the other channels. Greetings, Maxime. [-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --] [-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 929 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 236 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* bug#57559: guix pull fails on http status code 503 2022-09-08 9:23 ` Maxime Devos @ 2022-09-08 11:11 ` zimoun 2022-09-08 11:29 ` Maxime Devos 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: zimoun @ 2022-09-08 11:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Maxime Devos, André A. Gomes, 57559 Hi Maxime, On Thu, 08 Sep 2022 at 11:23, Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> wrote: > Looking at 'latest-channel-instances', the code for deciding what the > latest version is, is the same for the guix channel and any other > channel. As such, the 'Guix is unavailable' is, currently, not special. Well, ’latest-channel-instances’ relies on ’latest-channel-instance’ which tests ’guix-channel?’, --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- (define (guix-channel? channel) "Return true if CHANNEL is the 'guix' channel." (eq? 'guix (channel-name channel))) --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- then, for instance, the occurrences are: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- 12 candidates: ./guix/channels.scm:79: guix-channel? ./guix/channels.scm:192:(define (guix-channel? channel) ./guix/channels.scm:199: (if (and (guix-channel? chan) ./guix/channels.scm:424: (when (guix-channel? channel) ./guix/channels.scm:437: (when (guix-channel? channel) ./guix/channels.scm:778: (guix-channel? (channel-instance-channel instance))) ./guix/channels.scm:903: (item (if (guix-channel? channel) ./guix/scripts/pull.scm:775: (match (find guix-channel? channels) ./guix/scripts/pull.scm:788: (remove guix-channel? channels)))) ./gnu/packages/package-management.scm:125: guix-channel? ./gnu/packages/package-management.scm:618: (delay (match (or (find guix-channel? (current-channels)) ./gnu/ci.scm:478: (find guix-channel? channels)) --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- And my point is that the Guix channel is special when pulling. Therefore, we could split the cases when the Guix channel is unreachable and when other extra-channels are unreachable; because the impact are different, IMHO. As I pointed earlier in the thread, the main issue is when these extra channels are unreachable; as André have initially reported. Cheers, simon ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* bug#57559: guix pull fails on http status code 503 2022-09-08 11:11 ` zimoun @ 2022-09-08 11:29 ` Maxime Devos 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Maxime Devos @ 2022-09-08 11:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zimoun, André A. Gomes, 57559 [-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3415 bytes --] On 08-09-2022 13:11, zimoun wrote: > Hi Maxime, > > On Thu, 08 Sep 2022 at 11:23, Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> wrote: > >> Looking at 'latest-channel-instances', the code for deciding what the >> latest version is, is the same for the guix channel and any other >> channel. As such, the 'Guix is unavailable' is, currently, not special. > Well, ’latest-channel-instances’ relies on ’latest-channel-instance’ > which tests ’guix-channel?’, > > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > (define (guix-channel? channel) > "Return true if CHANNEL is the 'guix' channel." > (eq? 'guix (channel-name channel))) > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- That's only for channel authentication and patches, not relevant for this bug#57559. > then, for instance, the occurrences are: > > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > 12 candidates: > ./guix/channels.scm:79: guix-channel? > ./guix/channels.scm:192:(define (guix-channel? channel) > ./guix/channels.scm:199: (if (and (guix-channel? chan) > ./guix/channels.scm:424: (when (guix-channel? channel) > ./guix/channels.scm:437: (when (guix-channel? channel) > ./guix/channels.scm:778: (guix-channel? (channel-instance-channel instance))) > ./guix/channels.scm:903: (item (if (guix-channel? channel) > ./guix/scripts/pull.scm:775: (match (find guix-channel? channels) > ./guix/scripts/pull.scm:788: (remove guix-channel? channels)))) > ./gnu/packages/package-management.scm:125: guix-channel? > ./gnu/packages/package-management.scm:618: (delay (match (or (find guix-channel? (current-channels)) > ./gnu/ci.scm:478: (find guix-channel? channels)) > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > > And my point is that the Guix channel is special when pulling. It is special for some things, yes, but it isn't special for deciding what is the latest version. These occurrences are for channel authentication, patching, building, Cuirass and the 'guix' package, not for deciding what is to be considered the latest available version of the channel > Therefore, we could split the cases when the Guix channel is unreachable > and when other extra-channels are unreachable; because the impact are > different, IMHO. In principle, we could, but I don't see the point. Solving things for the case where the unavailable channel is Guix is no more complicated than for other channels. > As I pointed earlier in the thread, the main issue is when these extra > channels are unreachable; as André have initially reported. This might be the main issue, yes, but I still don't see the point of treating 'guix' specially for the puposes of #57559. It would make the semantics of "guix pull" and its implementation more complex, for no apparent purpose AFAICT (solving the general issue would solve the main issue, right?). About the complexity of the implementation: as mentioned previously, latest-channel-instances doesn't treat the Guix channel specially (the authentication check and patches isn't relevant here), so adding an additional (if (guix-channel?) ...) would add complexity (and hence, require additional testing and maybe documentation). Greetings, Maxime. [-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --] [-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 929 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 236 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-09-08 11:30 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2022-09-03 11:21 bug#57559: guix pull fails on http status code 503 André A. Gomes 2022-09-03 17:27 ` Maxime Devos 2022-09-04 20:27 ` André A. Gomes 2022-09-05 8:21 ` zimoun 2022-09-05 20:20 ` Maxime Devos 2022-09-06 13:09 ` zimoun 2022-09-08 0:55 ` Maxime Devos 2022-09-08 7:25 ` zimoun 2022-09-08 9:23 ` Maxime Devos 2022-09-08 11:11 ` zimoun 2022-09-08 11:29 ` Maxime Devos
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).