From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57164) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gLnzF-0006Ee-0R for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Nov 2018 06:33:05 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gLnzE-0008HR-7F for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Nov 2018 06:33:04 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:41090) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gLnzE-0008HI-1F for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Nov 2018 06:33:04 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gLnzC-0001Or-0V for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Nov 2018 06:33:03 -0500 Subject: [bug#33329] [PATCH] gnu: Deprecate linux-module shpchp and tell user to remove it. Resent-Message-ID: From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) References: <87h8jbang2.fsf@elephly.net> <01fa8c80-c57c-f73a-cec1-af91cacb58bf@riseup.net> <290b28ec-cd1e-e5e8-275e-133771c7d4f3@riseup.net> <87lg60va39.fsf@gnu.org> <87muqglbak.fsf@posteo.net> Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 12:32:35 +0100 In-Reply-To: (swedebugia's message of "Sun, 11 Nov 2018 08:27:59 +0100") Message-ID: <87lg5zu9ws.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: swedebugia Cc: rekado@elephly.net, 33329@debbugs.gnu.org swedebugia skribis: > On 2018-11-11 01:15, Brett Gilio wrote: >> >> Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: >> >>> If anything, what should be improved IMO is the error message you get >>> when specifying a module that is unavailable. That=E2=80=99s not easil= y done >>> though since that happens at build time. >> >> I think Ludo is correct in this, an error message seems to be the only >> option we have to ensure that maintainability and reproducibility are >> respected. To add onto that, I was thinking that maybe it could be part >> of the configuration process that we could modify to ensure that all of >> the specified modules that are needed are available else it throws an >> error? > > Ok. Would my patch have worked anyway? I spotted a typo: (eqv? (missing 'shpchp)) is wrong because =E2=80=98eqv?= =E2=80=99 should take two arguments and =E2=80=98missing=E2=80=99 is not a procedure. Apart from this the patch could have worked I guess. > So where would that error message be produced? > In gnu/build/linux-modules? load-linux-modules? An error message is produced while building the initrd; see commit 4db7a9dc663c5b26e45ec35538bf68ff87acdf7b. For now, what about closing this issue and opening a new one when we have an idea on how to improve on this? Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.