Re: [PATCH] doc: Mention "guix pull" during installation.

[Alex Sassmannshausen <alex.sassmannshausen@gmail.com>]

Ludovic Courtès writes:

> Hello!
>
> Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> skribis:
>
>> I've recently gave an explanation of why I think using `guix pull`
>> before installing GuixSD should not be recommended unconditionally:
>>
>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guix/2016-11/msg00047.html
>>
>> In the specific case of installing GuixSD 0.11.0 today, `guix pull` is
>> necessary, because we lack the substitutes, and some packages can't be
>> built at all now [1]. But, adding these lines to the manual now won't
>> make it show up in the 0.11.0 installer manual.
>>
>> I think we should work on improving our infrastructure in the next
>> release cycle, and revisit this change to the manual if we are still
>> having problems before the 0.13.0 release.
>>
>> What does everyone think?
>
> I agree with everything you wrote here.
>
> Ludo’.

I think I too agree here.  Especially as my experience (running GuixSD
on i686 bare metal) suggests that `guix pull` can actually result in
packages that do not quite build reliably.  There currently seems to be
a `guix pull` sweet spot when the substitutes are not too old yet the
recipes not too new…

I think the best solution would definitely be guaranteed availability of
substitutes for releases until at least the next release — so I greatly
appreciate the work that is being done to on the infrastructure side.

My 2¢,

Alex