From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: myglc2 Subject: Re: Archive authentication & =?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=98guix_challenge?= =?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=99?= Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 18:29:33 -0500 Message-ID: <86y3x8s65e.fsf@gmail.com> References: <8737goz2ba.fsf@gnu.org> <8660kud3u4.fsf@gmail.com> <874m03z5h2.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <86o9y9fybz.fsf@gmail.com> <87shnk3iib.fsf@gnu.org> <87y3xa4z08.fsf@gmail.com> <8760kefaoc.fsf@gnu.org> <864lzy10b9.fsf@gmail.com> <87vasduo0h.fsf@gnu.org> <87efz03byw.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49119) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cdmXS-0001MQ-PR for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 18:29:39 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cdmXP-0006WP-Kt for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 18:29:38 -0500 In-reply-to: <87efz03byw.fsf@gmail.com> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Maxim Cournoyer Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On 02/14/2017 at 17:43 Maxim Cournoyer writes: > Hi George and Ludovic, > > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > > [...] >> >> ‘guix pull’ preserves your (guix config) module. So if the ‘guix’ you >> run was configured to use /etc, it’ll keep using that; if it was >> configured to use /usr/local/etc, it’ll keep using that. Could you please clarify? Does it do this when invoked by 'guix pull' or by './pre-inst-env guix pull', or in both cases? >> If you run “./pre-inst-env guix pull”, then you end up using (guix >> config) from your build tree, which is configured to use /usr/local/etc >> by default. That’s probably what happened, no? I don't use './pre-inst-env' so I don't think so. But maybe I did on the system from which I did 'system init' to create this one. Would that explain it? [...] > George, as an alternative, you might be interested in declaring the extra > key in your system's config.scm file [0]. Great point, thank you Maxim.