From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: myglc2 Subject: Re: Heads-up: transition to Guile 2.2 Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 20:40:01 -0400 Message-ID: <86efvwxm3i.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87bmt28qnm.fsf@gnu.org> <87k26chy16.fsf@gnu.org> <87y3u5wwsi.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <864lwtzmxj.fsf@gmail.com> <87inl8vrw4.fsf@gnu.org> <8660h8k56i.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51000) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d8c9I-0001Qi-7o for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 10 May 2017 20:40:09 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d8c9E-0002Rd-7d for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 10 May 2017 20:40:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: <8660h8k56i.fsf@gmail.com> (myglc2@gmail.com's message of "Wed, 10 May 2017 13:11:33 -0400") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel On 05/10/2017 at 13:11 myglc2 writes: > On 05/10/2017 at 14:05 Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > >> Hi, >> >> myglc2 skribis: >> >>> I run GuixSD from git checkout this way ... >>> >>> cd ~/src/guix >>> guix environment -e "(@ (gnu packages package-management) guix)" -M 4 \ >>> -c 4 >>> git pull >>> make clean-go >>> ./bootstrap >>> ./configure --localstatedir=3D/var --sysconfdir=3D/etc >>> make -j 10 check >>> exit >>> sudo guix system build /root/con/55.scm -M 4 -c 4 >>> sudo guix system reconfigure /root/con/55.scm -M 4 -c 4 >>> sudo reboot >>> >>> Should this just work? Or is there something that needs to be done >>> differently for the 2.0 >>> 2.2 change? >> >> That should just work. >> >> The only issue you might have is warnings about invalid .go files if >> ~/.config/guix/latest contains 2.0 .go files and you=E2=80=99re running = Guile >> 2.2. The fix is to run =E2=80=98guix pull=E2=80=99. > > Thanks, I did that and, as you suggested, I got warnings ... > > g1@g1 ~/src$ guix package -m g1.scm > ;;; WARNING: loading compiled file /home/g1/.config/guix/latest/guix/ui.g= o failed: > ;;; ERROR: In procedure load-thunk-from-memory: not an ELF file > ;;; note: source file /home/g1/.config/guix/latest/guix/ui.scm > ;;; newer than compiled /gnu/store/d4wwx93gqizx132zjk7h1ir7rzph0pig= -guix-0.12.0-10.ba2260d/lib/guile/2.2/site-ccache/guix/ui.go > > ... but I really didn't want to do a git pull. So I re-built guix.=20=20 > > Bottom line: FWIW, I upgraded from 2.0 to 2.2 without 'guix pull' like > this way ... > > cd ~/src/guix > guix environment -e "(@ (gnu packages package-management) guix)" -M 4 \ > -c 4 > git pull > make clean-go > ./bootstrap > ./configure --localstatedir=3D/var --sysconfdir=3D/etc > make -j 10 check > exit > sudo guix system build /root/con/55.scm -M 4 -c 4 > sudo guix system reconfigure /root/con/55.scm -M 4 -c 4 > sudo reboot > > cd ~/src/guix > guix environment -e "(@ (gnu packages package-management) guix)" -M 4 \ > -c 4 > make clean-go > ./bootstrap > ./configure --localstatedir=3D/var --sysconfdir=3D/etc > make -j 10 check Or maybe not. With your recent change, guix says it's 85 days old ... g1@g1 ~/src/guix$ guix package -i icecat guix package: warning: Your Guix installation is 85 days old. guix package: warning: Consider running 'guix pull' followed by 'guix package -u' to get up-to-date packages and security updates. [...] But I just did a git pull ... g1@g1 ~/src/guix$ git -C ~/.config/guix/latest describe v0.12.0-3681-gbc0e6c931 ... and my ~/.config/guix/latest points to it ... g1@g1 ~/src/guix$ stat ~/.config/guix/latest | grep File: File: /home/g1/.config/guix/latest -> /home/g1/src/guix/ ... and I did 'make' and 'git system reconfigure' & reboot so that guix claims it is the latest version ... g1@g1 ~$ guix --version guix (GNU Guix) 0.12.0.3681-bc0e6 So... is some part of my guix 85 days old? Or... there a problem with the new "days old" message? TIA - George =20=20