From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark H Weaver Subject: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 02:32:18 -0500 Message-ID: <87wpc1k0e5.fsf@netris.org> References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> <877f429kju.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48155) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cl9cH-0003bn-Bc for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 02:33:06 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cl9cE-0001AM-7w for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 02:33:05 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:45339) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cl9cE-0001AH-4u for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 02:33:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cl9cD-00059I-Ow for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 02:33:01 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <877f429kju.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Mon, 06 Mar 2017 22:12:21 +0100") List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 25852@debbugs.gnu.org ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > Leo Famulari 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 automatical= ly. > > 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? Mark