From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robert Vollmert Subject: bug#36878: guix system reconfigure broken Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 10:30:27 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87wofycfuq.fsf@sdf.lonestar.org> <0D1F3165-BE55-42D8-98D9-364CB4904A0E@vllmrt.net> <87k1bycbn8.fsf@sdf.lonestar.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:52969) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ht6UJ-0000k6-5o for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Aug 2019 04:31:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ht6UI-0006sR-8l for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Aug 2019 04:31:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:44624) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ht6UI-0006sN-6R for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Aug 2019 04:31:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ht6UI-0008IC-1r for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Aug 2019 04:31:02 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87k1bycbn8.fsf@sdf.lonestar.org> 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: "Jakob L. Kreuze" Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, 36878@debbugs.gnu.org > On 31. Jul 2019, at 20:16, Jakob L. Kreuze = wrote: >=20 > Hi Robert, >=20 > Robert Vollmert writes: >=20 >> The concrete problem is this: >>=20 >> 1. nginx is running with config file A >> 2. make some change to nginx config >> 3. run guix system reconfigure (which builds a new nginx config file = B) >> 4. run herd restart nginx >> 5. nginx is still running with config file A >>=20 >> After reverting this commit, if I perform these steps, I end up with >> nginx running with config file B in 5. >=20 > Okay, I see now. Thank you clarifying. Would you be willing to see if > the patch provided by #36880 fixes this issue? Yes, it seems it does!