From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wurmus@mdc-berlin.de>
Subject: bug#24670: Unexpected EOF reading a line (from guix pull) [forward]
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 16:37:11 +0200
Message-ID: <idjshrzvvxk.fsf@bimsb-sys02.mdc-berlin.net>
References: <20161011223407.GA31313@khaalida>
	<8760oycwno.fsf@we.make.ritual.n0.is> <20161012070258.GA12645@khaalida>
	<87y41s8ybd.fsf@we.make.ritual.n0.is>
	<idjbmyoxzgx.fsf@bimsb-sys02.mdc-berlin.net>
	<87k2dbvlhd.fsf@we.make.ritual.n0.is>
	<idj37jzxmxf.fsf@bimsb-sys02.mdc-berlin.net>
	<87twcfp44d.fsf@we.make.ritual.n0.is>
	<idjzim7w3i3.fsf@bimsb-sys02.mdc-berlin.net>
	<87r37jp1dj.fsf@we.make.ritual.n0.is>
	<idjwphbvzmd.fsf@bimsb-sys02.mdc-berlin.net>
	<87y41rvw3p.fsf@we.make.ritual.n0.is>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Return-path: <bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42041)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1bv3cd-00056N-Ie
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 10:38:11 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1bv3cY-0007yT-Br
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 10:38:06 -0400
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:49208)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1bv3cY-0007xp-0f
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 10:38:02 -0400
Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1bv3cX-0002tS-TI
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 10:38:01 -0400
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.24670.B24670.147645584811079@debbugs.gnu.org>
In-Reply-To: <87y41rvw3p.fsf@we.make.ritual.n0.is>
List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guix/>
List-Post: <mailto:bug-guix@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "bug-Guix" <bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: ng0 <ng0@we.make.ritual.n0.is>
Cc: 24670@debbugs.gnu.org, dian_cecht@zoho.com


ng0 <ng0@we.make.ritual.n0.is> writes:

> Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wurmus@mdc-berlin.de> writes:
>
>> ng0 <ng0@we.make.ritual.n0.is> writes:
>>
>>> It is impossible to reproduce exactly the system which caused the bug,
>>> but I will try to reproduce it as good as you can with Gentoo.
>>
>> I chuckled a little.  It’s ironic because with Guix we actually can
>> reproduce systems with relative ease :)
>
> Food for thought: right now, yes. But what happens when more people
> start to use Guix, with modified versions of packages or even versions
> of packages which are no longer in master? Do we simply ignore the
> request for support with "sorry, this is not in master we can not
> reproduce it"?

Given the Guix git hash (and provided the software builds reproducibly)
even older systems can be reproduced.

But it would be unreasonable to expect support for things that were
broken in old versions and have already been fixed in master.

~~ Ricardo