Fallout from recent nss-certs changes

Fallout from recent nss-certs changes

[Ian Eure]

Some recent nss-certs changes have a negative side effects which 
needs to be fixed.

A patch of mine was pushed recently (commit 
0920693381d9f6b7923e69fe00be5de8621ddb6f), which adds nss-certs 
3.98 to (gnu packages certs), under the nss-certs-3.98 variable.

Then, commit fdfd7667c66cf9ce746330f39bcd366e124460e1 was pushed, 
which adds nss-certs to %base-packages-networking.  This 
references the nss-certs variable, which is version 3.88.1.

If an operating-system’s packages includes 
`(specification->package "nss-certs")', this causes breakage, 
because that form selects version 3.98, but %base-packages 
includes 3.88.1, which causes an error on the next `guix system 
reconfigure' due to conflicting package versions in the profile. 
Prior to commit 65e8472a4b6fc6f66871ba0dad518b7d4c63595e, the 
graphical installer would ask users if they wanted to install 
nss-certs, and put this form into the operating-system’s packages, 
so there are likely many users affected -- it bit me, and I’ve 
seen a couple in IRC as well.

I think the options to fix this are:

1. Removing (specification->package "nss-certs") from one’s 
operating-system.
2. Grafting nss-certs 3.98 onto nss-certs 3.88.1.
3. Replacing nss-certs 3.88.1 with 3.98.

The most expedient option is 1, as it can be applied by users -- 
but there’s probably not a good way to communicate that this needs 
to happen.

There was some talk in IRC about grafting nss/nss-certs, but it 
looks like this didn’t happen.  An upgrade is the best path, but 
would probably need to happen in core-updates, since this rebuilds 
a large number of packages.

Thoughts on this?

Thanks,

  — Ian

Re: Fallout from recent nss-certs changes

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

Hello Ian.  My understanding of the nss-certs etc/news.scm item had been
that we should remove (specification->package "nss-certs"), which became
unnecessary and clutters config.scm.  From what you write, this was
actually not intended, but it is still not a bug IMHO.

(I’m not involved with the change, though.)

Regards,
Florian

Re: Fallout from recent nss-certs changes

[Ian Eure]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 593 bytes --]

The change is mentioned in the channel news, but it says nothing about needing to remove that part of the config.


On April 21, 2024 1:32:38 AM PDT, "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de> wrote:
>Hello Ian.  My understanding of the nss-certs etc/news.scm item had been
>that we should remove (specification->package "nss-certs"), which became
>unnecessary and clutters config.scm.  From what you write, this was
>actually not intended, but it is still not a bug IMHO.
>
>(I’m not involved with the change, though.)
>
>Regards,
>Florian

Thanks,

  — Ian

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 946 bytes --]

Re: Fallout from recent nss-certs changes

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

Ian Eure <ian@retrospec.tv> writes:
> The change is mentioned in the channel news, but it says nothing about
> needing to remove that part of the config.

You are right; I have added more explicit instructions as commit
e5c0ea22e68cc8d6f99957295bc9198afb8455df.

Users should see it when they guix pull again.

Regards,
Florian

Re: Fallout from recent nss-certs changes

[Felix Lechner via Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution.]

Hi,

On Sat, Apr 20 2024, Ian Eure wrote:

> If an operating-system’s packages includes `(specification->package
> "nss-certs")', this causes breakage, because that form selects version
> 3.98, but %base-packages includes 3.88.1, which causes an error on the
> next `guix system reconfigure' due to conflicting package versions in
> the profile.

Why does the unversioned stringy selector (specification->package
"nss-certs") resolve to a version different from the unversioned
variable nss-certs?  Is that a bug?

Kind regards
Felix

P.S. I hoped to use the word "reified" but did not know how it fit in.

Re: Fallout from recent nss-certs changes

[Ian Eure]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 924 bytes --]

No, this is not a bug.  specification->package always returns the latest version of a package and has no way of knowing what variable(s) that package object is bound to.

On April 21, 2024 8:02:50 AM PDT, Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Sat, Apr 20 2024, Ian Eure wrote:
>
>> If an operating-system’s packages includes `(specification->package
>> "nss-certs")', this causes breakage, because that form selects version
>> 3.98, but %base-packages includes 3.88.1, which causes an error on the
>> next `guix system reconfigure' due to conflicting package versions in
>> the profile.
>
>Why does the unversioned stringy selector (specification->package
>"nss-certs") resolve to a version different from the unversioned
>variable nss-certs?  Is that a bug?
>
>Kind regards
>Felix
>
>P.S. I hoped to use the word "reified" but did not know how it fit in.

Thanks,

  — Ian

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1456 bytes --]