From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1_?= =?UTF-8?Q?=C4=8Cech?= Subject: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 10:43:27 +0100 Message-ID: <20170305094327.3m67twgmae6nyloq@penguin> References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> <20170304202941.sgeprky4l2lda7xt@penguin> <20170304224359.GA18077@jasmine> <20170305075641.76f4mznuod2gztdi@penguin> <20170305092511.GA9142@mail.thebird.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="l22j7hlw2s2g3ajh" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54445) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ckShy-0003Su-5J for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Mar 2017 04:44:06 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ckShu-0007mS-Vm for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Mar 2017 04:44:06 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:42346) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ckShu-0007mG-St for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Mar 2017 04:44:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ckShu-0003xk-Go for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Mar 2017 04:44:02 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170305092511.GA9142@mail.thebird.nl> 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: Pjotr Prins Cc: 25852@debbugs.gnu.org --l22j7hlw2s2g3ajh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 09:25:11AM +0000, Pjotr Prins wrote: >On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 08:56:41AM +0100, Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 =C4=8Cech wrote: >> And IMHO the best and also "Guix way" could be making guix-daemon aware = of >> possible newer versions in /gnu/store and execing them instead... > >Giving a loud warning should really be sufficient. The Guix way is to >have a system not surprise us by shifting the sand under our feet ;) Yes, but the surprise is made when your expectations are different =66rom what is naturally expected. My expectation is that when `guix pull' is run, it should update whole guix, not just part (guix - guix-daemon). Surprise is when it does not do it. Removing the surprise can be either by splitting the package to make obvious it is independent part or making `guix pull' able to update guix-daemon as well. Loud warning is really sufficient for user (or admin) but not for distribution package maintainer. Another option is that I will do the split by myself and take guix-daemon sources from GIT but I'm sure I'll make much worse job than you. Best regards, S_W --l22j7hlw2s2g3ajh Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEDOrssfr9jDQthC2PSiPjT6AzQ20FAli73b8ACgkQSiPjT6Az Q23Opg/8DqGfdy6nn5QcfvcgNQtkUt+tBgMdL/TRdTTnl92lRAXFwQlh5UoLy/5f 0kkAMeQh59LjQpgfhaaj+0aV7YltTBoyd0zCrfQF+cugR/p5ULGiAdTDsZCg3ZYq 8pqg5gZ8xYo/agePTUhQflYQSUc3XpjcdAcXO3gi/E+8qvfqZj8bVOxOaEo7+OFu 7i4fo/DsqtEVp07Ar9Sd5PRknB6lijtZ++ulnV6V8aazAzDeThq3t93pylLuPhA+ 2Hw7wn3cPiM7lzCVhiqFwVYzXrvojUqyibdwMwJKJc5lSTfMjVJZWa8N97wlFXyL W9A0xRzJPdOKrlpgIgbBLhHgpQKWK46halylyFFAv2UebrzCLaScph8xW13auRN0 sej2NBBCXUeMe2b8oFefgeWEc6iITwial9xAf8Cw8ZDW1NW7np6lp1PObmJ0MGx6 kxa1DrhB8cd5SCLeR6iRWV+iOVbtIwggP1uWVGKtfO+qu3hS7+9iTPIb7kLjyeHd 0zhwCskYNvrPtzoDE65gdRkpKZ7ub4FvTGpI+lMIrjgRLwrkO4+jPb+8hpPvAA8h 7L3YcdG+ryyJmfwdaNOW88dnwV64bs3Qz2iuFMi5XenQz1ltgXpGUQsjyrQqU8q1 FRfEcGtPBiCLfQK0IwpoDRkPmtRaxtBxrmsOUubOW/oObnWg+1w= =YKnX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --l22j7hlw2s2g3ajh--