From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Danny Milosavljevic Subject: bug#34902: guix cannot find a module on boot Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 22:42:17 +0200 Message-ID: <20190404224217.5ddd00f7@scratchpost.org> References: <813466538d530a38bddf60ed348cb75b@lepiller.eu> <87o967lxsa.fsf@gnu.org> <20190318231359.217af9f4@scratchpost.org> <87wokq4ptt.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; boundary="Sig_/ai33bz=QQA5Q17Z7bQR._KY"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:38805) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hC9CR-0005IT-QP for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Apr 2019 16:43:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hC9CQ-0004HH-Sl for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Apr 2019 16:43:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:59428) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hC9CQ-0004Fs-I2 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Apr 2019 16:43:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hC9CQ-0002V2-BU for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Apr 2019 16:43:02 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87wokq4ptt.fsf@gnu.org> 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: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 34902@debbugs.gnu.org --Sig_/ai33bz=QQA5Q17Z7bQR._KY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Maybe I'm too paranoid but can we have "guix" in the file name "modules.nam= e" somewhere? Otherwise I see it coming that upstream uses modules.name for an incompatible purpose and then we'd be with a guix interface that's broken and/or break their interface. (So much complexity for something so silly. Honestly, I feel like E-mailing the upstream author and telling him what I think. WTF :P) Should we warn when we use the fallback? I like the defensive programming but I feel we shouldn't have it *silently* fall back when the database is broken/missing. Otherwise LGTM! >(basename file ".ko") ^^^^^^ Nice. Where was that all my life. ;-) --Sig_/ai33bz=QQA5Q17Z7bQR._KY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEds7GsXJ0tGXALbPZ5xo1VCwwuqUFAlymbCkACgkQ5xo1VCww uqWzpwf/UyysRfWE0EPtXVS/Y69qhO1aOKJp7+T32J23WOZFWPSItiPn+2b1OCdG 90yuC34rj918xgP5VbCvatBM3TSmerm48U0QlaCXGbQJIDCPMwM9KfkP831eiX+G RUEw2UJjGq3n4y6iHFO8Eyhngqhrm6xabPetisTXBWZ8TViLBeNnlJ8eRObJgpBi x96qRzmbc1pZ8EdDz6D4WlG345OevA6D2SN/wgvjkY/e6jKMqGy3oGJfD+aKkzUe uB7Fj97hDYaxUNVTarbtd/0kih5A6ytYHW6qsht4vLDHJA0KyfIWYfIr9DjejPG7 AakeexaymWROYnSCDt8l+edIClLB4A== =hW1v -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/ai33bz=QQA5Q17Z7bQR._KY--