On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:44:41PM +0300, Efraim Flashner wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 12:42:08PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote:
> > I found that I had to move the attic package definition below borg's, or
> > else the borg variable was unbound when building (gnu packages backup):

> shot in the dark, what if you left it in place and added
> (properties `((superseded . ,(delay borg))))))

A different failure:

$ ./pre-inst-env guix build attic
Backtrace:                               
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
 157: 17 [catch #t #<catch-closure 1ad9980> ...]
In unknown file:
   ?: 16 [apply-smob/1 #<catch-closure 1ad9980>]
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
  63: 15 [call-with-prompt prompt0 ...]
In ice-9/eval.scm:
 432: 14 [eval # #]
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
2401: 13 [save-module-excursion #<procedure 1af6940 at ice-9/boot-9.scm:4045:3 ()>]
4050: 12 [#<procedure 1af6940 at ice-9/boot-9.scm:4045:3 ()>]
1724: 11 [%start-stack load-stack ...]
1729: 10 [#<procedure 1b0dea0 ()>]
In unknown file:
   ?: 9 [primitive-load "/home/leo/work/guix/scripts/guix"]
In guix/ui.scm:
1192: 8 [run-guix-command build "attic"]
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
 157: 7 [catch srfi-34 #<procedure 267af20 at guix/ui.scm:423:2 ()> ...]
 157: 6 [catch system-error ...]
In guix/scripts/build.scm:
 661: 5 [#<procedure 2844d20 at guix/scripts/build.scm:650:2 ()>]
 626: 4 [options->derivations #<build-daemon 256.15 2845a80> (# # # # ...)]
In srfi/srfi-1.scm:
 646: 3 [append-map #<procedure 2670ba0 at guix/scripts/build.scm:556:14 (expr)> #]
 578: 2 [map #<procedure 2670ba0 at guix/scripts/build.scm:556:14 (expr)> #]
In guix/scripts/build.scm:
 564: 1 [#<procedure 2670ba0 at guix/scripts/build.scm:556:14 (expr)> #]
In gnu/packages.scm:
 309: 0 [%find-package "attic" "attic" #f #:fallback? #f]

gnu/packages.scm:309:5: In procedure %find-package:
gnu/packages.scm:309:5: Throw to key `match-error' with args `("match" "no matching pattern" #<promise #<procedure 3578560 at gnu/packages/backup.scm:402:33 ()>>)'.