From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: bug#25775: Attempts to fix bootstrap Guile bug Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 18:00:29 -0500 Message-ID: <20170221230029.GB20174@jasmine> References: <87ino4ylhi.fsf@pobox.com> <20170221180327.GA6953@jasmine> <87tw7nxje8.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33990) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cgJQg-0002AX-G1 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 18:01:07 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cgJQd-0001Yk-Ea for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 18:01:06 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:51185) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cgJQc-0001Yc-Nh for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 18:01:03 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cgJQc-0002WP-8L for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 18:01:02 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87tw7nxje8.fsf@elephly.net> List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: Andy Wingo , 25775@debbugs.gnu.org On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:34:55PM +0100, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > > Leo Famulari writes: > > > What about Ricardo's "really gross fix"? [0] I don't understand it enough to > > know why it's gross. If it works and does not break other things, at > > least it could protect people who have not yet hit the bug, but will hit > > it the next time they run `guix pull`. > > It’s gross because it’s just a band aid. I don’t know if it might break > other things (in my short tests it didn’t). It shouldn’t affect people > with new daemons, because they will use the daemon’s download feature. > > I guess we could just push it to fix “guix pull” now and revert later > once we have a good fix (or if it causes trouble). > > What do you think? Since you know my relative ignorance, take this with a grain of salt, but that sounds good to me. You should probably wait for Andy's opinion, though :)