From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>
Subject: Re: =?utf-8?Q?What=E2=80=99s?= next?
Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 23:44:48 +0200
Message-ID: <877f12ezzj.fsf@elephly.net>
References: <877f16z9eo.fsf@gnu.org> <87y3tm8k2r.fsf@elephly.net>
	<87zidyvctf.fsf@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58719)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1dEjW8-0005Cg-AA
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 May 2017 17:45:01 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1dEjW7-0000GI-Gf
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 May 2017 17:45:00 -0400
In-reply-to: <87zidyvctf.fsf@gnu.org>
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>


Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> Hello!
>
> Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> skribis:
>
>> Here are some other annoyances:
>>
>> * the verbosity of reporting hash mismatches.  You posted a neat little
>>   change for that some time ago, but I cannot find it any more.
>
> Oh right, see attached.

I think you forgot to attach it.

>> * texlive.  I’m working on splitting the package up.  (An aggressive
>>   firewall at work put a stop to that work, but I’ll try to resume very
>>   soon.)
>
> Good point!  Looking forward to that.

Me too!

>> * very explicit but cryptic stack traces.  I think that all errors
>>   should be reported more nicely.  The error can still be printed (on
>>   demand?), but Guix probably should not spill its innards too readily.
>
> I agree with this direction, but we’ll have to work on concrete cases
> here.  Bug reports of the form “when I do this I get a stack trace
> instead of an error message” are welcome!

Danny submitted bug #27100 for this with two examples.

-- 
Ricardo

GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
https://elephly.net