From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Carlo Zancanaro <carlo@zancanaro.id.au>
Subject: Re: guix package conflict
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 07:01:05 +1000
Message-ID: <87r25rquwe.fsf@zancanaro.id.au>
References: <CAJsg1E860MhTw+S2bmkzhScgv+V_DM4AKcJdz_=TX-3EPfFJWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <87y301v5hb.fsf@elephly.net> <87mugh8hqn.fsf@zancanaro.id.au>
 <87ef1rmx4p.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87r25ra5nk.fsf@netris.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Return-path: <help-guix-bounces+gcggh-help-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:54270)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2)
 (envelope-from <carlo@zancanaro.id.au>) id 1hwuxm-00069R-Nw
 for help-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Aug 2019 17:01:15 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <carlo@zancanaro.id.au>) id 1hwuxl-0003pS-Na
 for help-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Aug 2019 17:01:14 -0400
Received: from zancanaro.com.au ([45.76.117.151]:39046)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
 (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <carlo@zancanaro.id.au>)
 id 1hwuxl-0003oT-Br
 for help-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Aug 2019 17:01:13 -0400
In-reply-to: <87r25ra5nk.fsf@netris.org>
List-Id: <help-guix.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/help-guix>,
 <mailto:help-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-guix>
List-Post: <mailto:help-guix@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:help-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-guix>,
 <mailto:help-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: help-guix-bounces+gcggh-help-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Help-Guix" <help-guix-bounces+gcggh-help-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>
Cc: help-guix@gnu.org

Hey Mark,

On Mon, Aug 12 2019, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> What leads you to believe this?
>
> I think you're mistaken, based both on past experience and also 
> from examining the current code.

After taking another look at the code, I agree with you.

> The relevant procedure is 'transaction-upgrade-entry' in (guix 
> scripts package), here:
>
>   https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/tree/guix/scripts/package.scm?id=c383c36edeb7eb358f142c52276d6e5d32bda044#n225

This is the code I was looking at, but I think I was just too 
hasty when I looked at it. In the past I've seen conflicts similar 
to what Andy saw, and was always able to resolve them easily by 
using "guix package -i" rather than "guix package -u", from which 
I formed my hypothesis about how --upgrade deals with versions.

> This is certainly the behavior I remember from using --upgrade 
> myself during the early years of Guix, although in recent years 
> I've been using the declarative approach to maintain my profile, 
> using "guix package --manifest".

I have also switched to using --manifest, so my memories of 
--upgrade aren't very strong.

Carlo