bug#25952: offloading: empty machines file leads to error

bug#25952: offloading: empty machines file leads to error

[ng0]

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.

bug#25952: offloading empty machines file

[zimoun]

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

bug#25952: offloading empty machines file

[zimoun]

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

bug#25952: offloading empty machines file

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Bug reports for GNU Guix]

[-- 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 --]

bug#25952: offloading empty machines file

[zimoun]

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

bug#25952: offloading empty machines file

[zimoun]

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

bug#25952: offloading: empty machines file leads to error

[zimoun]

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

bug#25952: offloading empty machines file

[zimoun]

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>

bug#25952: offloading: empty machines file leads to error

[Maxim Cournoyer]

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