From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: myglc2 <myglc2@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The usability of Guix configurations
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2017 14:40:45 -0500
Message-ID: <86d14sy2wy.fsf@gmail.com>
References: <868tfjw4is.fsf@gmail.com> <87po8u9ylu.fsf@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45235)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <myglc2@gmail.com>) id 1eCWDU-0005UP-R6
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Nov 2017 14:40:56 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <myglc2@gmail.com>) id 1eCWDQ-000240-5q
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Nov 2017 14:40:51 -0500
In-Reply-To: <87po8u9ylu.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic
	\=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\=
	\=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Tue, 07 Nov 2017 11:23:09 +0100")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: Guix-devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>

On 11/07/2017 at 11:23 Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes:

> Hello,
>
> myglc2 <myglc2@gmail.com> skribis:
>
>> My system recently broke when I did an upgrade. I reported what I
>> thought was a bug (bug#29072) but it turned out that, because qemu
>> package code had been moved, my system configuration had become broken
>> ;-(
>
> It should be noted that you were using a =E2=80=9Cdeveloper setup=E2=80=
=9D, specifically
> running Guix from a checkout with ./pre-inst-env and all.
>
> The issue with the stale module wouldn=E2=80=99t happen with =E2=80=9Cgui=
x pull=E2=80=9D, which
> is the recommended =E2=80=9Cuser setup.=E2=80=9D
>
> While I agree the situation is not ideal, I think we have to admit that
> developers can always shoot themselves in the foot, and that was one way
> of doing it.  ;-)
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Ludo=E2=80=99.

I think I misinterpreted this earlier as dismissing the usability
points.  Now I think you are referring to the bug specifically, and from
that point of view I agree. I have closed the bug as notabug.

I posted thoughts/questions re use of "developer setup" by users and
'make clean-go' here ...

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2017-11/msg00080.html

Best - George