From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: zerodaysfordays@sdf.lonestar.org (Jakob L. Kreuze) Subject: Re: "guix deploy" is in git master Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 16:11:01 -0400 Message-ID: <875zoci8x6.fsf@sdf.lonestar.org> References: <87a7drn0ux.fsf@dustycloud.org> <874l3zse7o.fsf@elephly.net> <87wogujmld.fsf@elephly.net> <871rz19a4h.fsf@gnu.org> <87r270ig1d.fsf@sdf.lonestar.org> <87lfx8jphz.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:46438) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hkZyk-0001C0-92 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Jul 2019 16:11:15 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hkZyj-00059c-Ab for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Jul 2019 16:11:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87lfx8jphz.fsf@elephly.net> (Ricardo Wurmus's message of "Mon, 08 Jul 2019 21:27:36 +0200") 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: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Ricardo, Ricardo Wurmus writes: > The remote=E2=80=99s Guix is pretty old, so it=E2=80=99s likely that Ludo= is right. > So, I actually reconfigured these machines semi-successfully, eh? > Neat! Yeah! Neat for me, too. I find it mind-blowing that this tool I made is already seeing some use > =E2=80=9Cfalse-if-exception=E2=80=9D isn=E2=80=99t great because it swall= ows the errors. I=E2=80=99d > still very much like to see the errors =E2=80=93 I just don=E2=80=99t wan= t to see a > backtrace is all. I agree that we should maintain some level of error reporting, which inspired my suggestion to warn on services that couldn't be started. But you're right that we should be catching the exceptions to achieve that rather than using 'false-if-exception'. > Similarly, it would be great if =E2=80=9Cguix deploy=E2=80=9D would conti= nue deploying > other machines in the list even if one of them couldn=E2=80=99t be deploy= ed > due to an error. I have a list of 24 machines and a few of them fail > with the user-homes error above. Would be nice if all the other > deployments would still go through, because they are independent. > > (On the other hand, the current behaviour might be desirable in case > there=E2=80=99s a problem with =E2=80=9Cguix deploy=E2=80=9D itself. Rath= er break just one > machine instead of wrecking the whole site. Dunno.) Well, we can pick and choose which exceptions we continue on. For services not being started, we can probably carry on with the deployment. I think, ideally, in the situations where 'guix deploy' should stop, we should try to clean up a bit? Though I'm not yet sure how we'd go about that aside from rolling back the system generation. Regards, Jakob --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEa1VJLOiXAjQ2BGSm9Qb9Fp2P2VoFAl0jo1UACgkQ9Qb9Fp2P 2Vqwmg//UVVLYjQLJBMHJ+VybUApqQvbAKAPM5t2u3CEDtjQjVkl921LyC9i+sAa YTTq6md9Ck6dlA2XyYVd1mSOhjVGIy1gnffoSyfcmKHFhEDI6qJ5IiY1wG7QFRn+ tLCCaR7bdX8ZlzFIdTFIQOqvhJ0ZIyaRbuXb4FGjSkDkzZEz44HT9grtT41yY6CB O+3vrD4emu22Em44mIUdPWRImT/zgti+4vLdZclZdhYrWP+JNID1ZLfwQryAa2sR Cni8ohwyHBqEJdVcaPw4ytw0oK3+E7gKmKSAjADu1fBoQdU6ZIDVLKqyRclSibjv jJxbIhxeq+s2x57+PuNgUmna9SzNsTB4rFMSYHSwWK0WBSvYjx9aKkfS2Va3kaOB 8apwtY0Hohe3vL+RjNMkwybc0kaXTk4gOEzZ7gfyApBhRZU1PsATa+5Zhny3eUwG EaPqZkfHwp4CPsLIvqQowy53S6s82K/yRjGKrMzDiEoaOgEilbqVDICGzNLdRcWX 33nqNo1x066SL+b3SA9/GdEUhOve29xHt0LzA+RmSVVQN8oab9LyhOTQ5K78SDwg FeRi3KdgCcGSLfK+VzSe3VIZRFRQf8e8dQFuSn/0BoEJT7Y/Zjn4uiRFfuPOmDyx zPZEbT8zubuZGW7BXq/RJ67KKyzXz5g50Q1NYmnQfqmR4d9izCY= =yyDb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--