* guix pull @ 2014-09-16 20:07 Federico Beffa 2014-09-17 5:19 ` Ludovic Courtès 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Federico Beffa @ 2014-09-16 20:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: guix-devel Hi, I've noticed that if I run "guix pull" from a directory where I do not have write permission I get an error: guix pull: error: mkstemp!: Permission denied Maybe it should be created in /tmp? Regards, Fede ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: guix pull 2014-09-16 20:07 guix pull Federico Beffa @ 2014-09-17 5:19 ` Ludovic Courtès 2014-09-22 9:53 ` Federico Beffa 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2014-09-17 5:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Federico Beffa; +Cc: guix-devel Federico Beffa <beffa@ieee.org> skribis: > I've noticed that if I run "guix pull" from a directory where I do not > have write permission I get an error: > > guix pull: error: mkstemp!: Permission denied > > Maybe it should be created in /tmp? Indeed, this is a bug. Should be fixed now, thanks. Ludo’. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: guix pull 2014-09-17 5:19 ` Ludovic Courtès @ 2014-09-22 9:53 ` Federico Beffa 2014-09-22 11:17 ` Ludovic Courtès 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Federico Beffa @ 2014-09-22 9:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: guix-devel On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote: > Federico Beffa <beffa@ieee.org> skribis: > >> I've noticed that if I run "guix pull" from a directory where I do not >> have write permission I get an error: >> >> guix pull: error: mkstemp!: Permission denied >> >> Maybe it should be created in /tmp? > > Indeed, this is a bug. Should be fixed now, thanks. I believe to have found another problem after doing a "guix pull": In the directory $HOME/.config/guix/latest/guix there is a file called "config.scm.in". Shouldn't this file be processed and output "config.scm"? Regards, Fede ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: guix pull 2014-09-22 9:53 ` Federico Beffa @ 2014-09-22 11:17 ` Ludovic Courtès 2014-09-22 17:07 ` Federico Beffa 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2014-09-22 11:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Federico Beffa; +Cc: guix-devel Federico Beffa <beffa@ieee.org> skribis: > I believe to have found another problem after doing a "guix pull": In > the directory $HOME/.config/guix/latest/guix there is a file called > "config.scm.in". Shouldn't this file be processed and output > "config.scm"? No, it’s on purpose: the goal is to keep using the already-installed (guix config), which contains the right file names etc. Ludo’. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: guix pull 2014-09-22 11:17 ` Ludovic Courtès @ 2014-09-22 17:07 ` Federico Beffa 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Federico Beffa @ 2014-09-22 17:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: guix-devel > No, it’s on purpose: the goal is to keep using the already-installed > (guix config), which contains the right file names etc. Got it. Finally I see how "guix pull" works and why importing modules only from $HOME/.config/guix/latest/ in the REPL is not enough... :-) Thanks, Fede ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Ghc and profile creation bug @ 2015-04-09 19:38 Andreas Enge 2015-04-10 16:13 ` Ludovic Courtès 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Andreas Enge @ 2015-04-09 19:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: guix-devel Hello, even after "make distclean; ./configure; make install", I obtain the following with c833ab5 (and before): $ guix package -n -u Backtrace: In ice-9/boot-9.scm: 157: 18 [catch #t #<catch-closure 1b09bc0> ...] In unknown file: ?: 17 [apply-smob/1 #<catch-closure 1b09bc0>] In ice-9/boot-9.scm: 63: 16 [call-with-prompt prompt0 ...] In ice-9/eval.scm: 432: 15 [eval # #] In ice-9/boot-9.scm: 2401: 14 [save-module-excursion #<procedure 1b26940 at ice-9/boot-9.scm:4045:3 ()>] 4050: 13 [#<procedure 1b26940 at ice-9/boot-9.scm:4045:3 ()>] 1724: 12 [%start-stack load-stack ...] 1729: 11 [#<procedure 1b3dea0 ()>] In unknown file: ?: 10 [primitive-load "/usr/local/bin/guix"] In guix/ui.scm: 849: 9 [run-guix-command package "-n" "-u"] In ice-9/boot-9.scm: 157: 8 [catch srfi-34 #<procedure 3144980 at guix/ui.scm:221:2 ()> ...] 157: 7 [catch system-error ...] In guix/scripts/package.scm: 1002: 6 [#<procedure 3149870 at guix/scripts/package.scm:991:4 ()>] 837: 5 [process-actions (# # # # ...)] In guix/store.scm: 977: 4 [run-with-store # ...] In guix/profiles.scm: 523: 3 [#<procedure 3d1ecf0 at guix/profiles.scm:523:2 (state)> #] 527: 2 [#<procedure 3cf5270 at guix/profiles.scm:523:2 (t-57033)> #] 411: 1 [ghc-package-cache-file #<<manifest> entries: (# # # # ...)>] In unknown file: ?: 0 [scm-error misc-error #f ...] ERROR: In procedure scm-error: ERROR: No variable named ghc in #<interface (gnu packages haskell) 32fc480> Andreas ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Ghc and profile creation bug 2015-04-09 19:38 Ghc and profile creation bug Andreas Enge @ 2015-04-10 16:13 ` Ludovic Courtès 2015-04-12 13:38 ` Ludovic Courtès 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2015-04-10 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andreas Enge; +Cc: guix-devel Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> skribis: > even after "make distclean; ./configure; make install", I obtain the following > with c833ab5 (and before): > > $ guix package -n -u [...] > In guix/scripts/package.scm: > 1002: 6 [#<procedure 3149870 at guix/scripts/package.scm:991:4 ()>] > 837: 5 [process-actions (# # # # ...)] > In guix/store.scm: > 977: 4 [run-with-store # ...] > In guix/profiles.scm: > 523: 3 [#<procedure 3d1ecf0 at guix/profiles.scm:523:2 (state)> #] > 527: 2 [#<procedure 3cf5270 at guix/profiles.scm:523:2 (t-57033)> #] > 411: 1 [ghc-package-cache-file #<<manifest> entries: (# # # # ...)>] > In unknown file: > ?: 0 [scm-error misc-error #f ...] > > ERROR: In procedure scm-error: > ERROR: No variable named ghc in #<interface (gnu packages haskell) 32fc480> I can’t reproduce it but Ricardo has the same problem, also after having used “make install.” I suspect an issue with .go/.scm timestamps, like the installed .go having a newer mtime than the .scm even though it’s actually out of sync. Could you try to investigate in that direction? TIA, Ludo’. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Ghc and profile creation bug 2015-04-10 16:13 ` Ludovic Courtès @ 2015-04-12 13:38 ` Ludovic Courtès 2015-04-12 19:00 ` Andreas Enge 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2015-04-12 13:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andreas Enge; +Cc: guix-devel While debugging it with Taylan on IRC, it occurred to us that guix/build-system/haskell.scm wasn’t getting installed, which is fixed by ce6fc7d. Can you confirm that this solves the problem? Anyway, I recommend against using repeated “make install”, one reason being that there can be leftovers if you don’t run “make uninstall” beforehand. “guix pull” is meant to be a handy way to deal with updates. I agree there are shortcomings (notably on my to-do list is the idea to switch it from doing a full download to using git), but we should discuss them and find a list of actions to take to address them. Ludo’. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Ghc and profile creation bug 2015-04-12 13:38 ` Ludovic Courtès @ 2015-04-12 19:00 ` Andreas Enge 2015-04-12 20:56 ` guix pull Ludovic Courtès 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Andreas Enge @ 2015-04-12 19:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: guix-devel On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 03:38:58PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > While debugging it with Taylan on IRC, it occurred to us that > guix/build-system/haskell.scm wasn’t getting installed, which is fixed > by ce6fc7d. Can you confirm that this solves the problem? It does, thanks a lot! > Anyway, I recommend against using repeated “make install”, one reason > being that there can be leftovers if you don’t run “make uninstall” > beforehand. It seems to be the good way of working in my "multi-user" setting. Why should every user handle his own copy of guix? For instance, the daemon needs to be installed in a system location to be started by the init system. Anyway, "make install" needs to work. > “guix pull” is meant to be a handy way to deal with updates. Does this not interfere badly with git? I am running "make install" from my latest stable master git branch, so that every user on the system has a recent stable guix, with "stable" in the sense of a rolling release, not the latest official relase. Then I use "./pre-inst-env" from my private branch in which I am developing new packages. Andreas ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* guix pull 2015-04-12 19:00 ` Andreas Enge @ 2015-04-12 20:56 ` Ludovic Courtès 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2015-04-12 20:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andreas Enge; +Cc: guix-devel Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> skribis: > On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 03:38:58PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> Anyway, I recommend against using repeated “make install”, one reason >> being that there can be leftovers if you don’t run “make uninstall” >> beforehand. > > It seems to be the good way of working in my "multi-user" setting. Why > should every user handle his own copy of guix? For instance, the daemon > needs to be installed in a system location to be started by the init system. > Anyway, "make install" needs to work. Of course it has to work, no argument here. :-) However, it is stateful, which makes it easier to get into troubles (for instance because a stale .scm file remains available, so ‘guix package -A’ would show its contents, or because of obscure timestamp issues on existing files, particularly if one tries “make install INSTALL='install -C'”, etc.) >> “guix pull” is meant to be a handy way to deal with updates. > > Does this not interfere badly with git? I am running "make install" from my > latest stable master git branch, so that every user on the system has a recent > stable guix, with "stable" in the sense of a rolling release, not the latest > official relase. Right, the model with “guix pull” is that each user is responsible for updating their local Guix. From the sysadmin’s viewpoint, this is bad, because each user could have their own thing, and some could still be installing old packages with security issues. From the user’s viewpoint, it’s total freedom. Perhaps “guix pull” could honor sysadmin-handled updates, for those cases where users do not want to run “guix pull” by themselves. Say, ‘guix’ would look for ~/.config/guix/latest first, and then /var/guix/latest. Thoughts? > Then I use "./pre-inst-env" from my private branch in which I am > developing new packages. Sure. Thanks, Ludo’. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-04-12 20:56 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2014-09-16 20:07 guix pull Federico Beffa 2014-09-17 5:19 ` Ludovic Courtès 2014-09-22 9:53 ` Federico Beffa 2014-09-22 11:17 ` Ludovic Courtès 2014-09-22 17:07 ` Federico Beffa -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 2015-04-09 19:38 Ghc and profile creation bug Andreas Enge 2015-04-10 16:13 ` Ludovic Courtès 2015-04-12 13:38 ` Ludovic Courtès 2015-04-12 19:00 ` Andreas Enge 2015-04-12 20:56 ` guix pull Ludovic Courtès
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).