From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id oCOKIGa0uV4PYwAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 20:24:06 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2 with LMTPS id uCBdJHS0uV7VOwAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 20:24:20 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45EE4940DDE for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 20:24:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:33936 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jYEyJ-0006nI-2X for larch@yhetil.org; Mon, 11 May 2020 16:24:19 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60884) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jYEy2-0006lv-DS for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 11 May 2020 16:24:02 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:41887) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jYEy2-0006jp-3V for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 11 May 2020 16:24:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jYEy2-00009q-0M for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 11 May 2020 16:24:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#35591: Segfault on flatpak remote-add Resent-From: Ricardo Wurmus Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 20:24:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 35591 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: 35591@debbugs.gnu.org X-Debbugs-Original-To: bug-guix@gnu.org X-Debbugs-Original-Cc: 35591@debbugs.gnu.org, Jonathan Frederickson Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.1589228631583 (code B ref -1); Mon, 11 May 2020 20:24:01 +0000 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 May 2020 20:23:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53431 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jYExr-00009K-HQ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 11 May 2020 16:23:51 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:38854) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jYExp-000097-UR for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 11 May 2020 16:23:50 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60874) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jYExp-0006bb-Oq for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 11 May 2020 16:23:49 -0400 Received: from sender4-of-o53.zoho.com ([136.143.188.53]:21316) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jYExn-0006j4-I1 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 11 May 2020 16:23:48 -0400 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1589228625; cv=none; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; b=nL6CecoqLWOCloz3kXEh6wgGgQVXTnCe4O4UcfkE1S/cqe5uuBlRvFQ9XhhH9M02ekai8Xejx9nNCm0oLa49xbQV5hhSbm4poxwpaW9lV7qWP8wTscbmSQUkmBXnHXgJbF8eh/vS4YYT9vdkhbbC7vFv8pS2rEcYts5iK4n41ec= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; t=1589228625; h=Content-Type:Cc:Date:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Subject:To; bh=4jfgIh/7LX/93eM22AJoRBSzXNDk0ChEFrM8u+Oxu7g=; b=G7xiHpwixDcBI4/Y4SdARf17cembdz6JgpGG3rsCMd1j8uQynxkdOF1zK1LKqMMUkVC5SaDR/tE+bBnTQerW0Xi4/cgpWTEDsJXMQeMgHKG0y90rj1EOj32pkomMhi/07l4junLBvua/ZXNYGqBbUJdUEeFotKbAg683EOrM4WY= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zohomail.com; dkim=pass header.i=elephly.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rekado@elephly.net; dmarc=pass header.from= header.from= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1589228625; s=zoho; d=elephly.net; i=rekado@elephly.net; h=References:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-reply-to:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=4jfgIh/7LX/93eM22AJoRBSzXNDk0ChEFrM8u+Oxu7g=; b=F7fx0xM4aBgEiOSC3eU5nXSK4F6jx1HfPajPWE4e8nnqDAQtaTV4s1Ws7NZUUa0Z NN8GYmHh5AT6wC4Z0YPz/Th9OPMubDCMTFJ7Z1PdN7MZzjFUu9EX+UFAgKF2Vri9q8P A5o7sclSq/DCOmpigbM+brHeLAZLxp1GWLgw1LWA= Received: from localhost (p54AD4A39.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.173.74.57]) by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1589228622974449.5613980041369; Mon, 11 May 2020 13:23:42 -0700 (PDT) References: <12034386-e609-4dec-997f-bbf6614d8482@www.fastmail.com> <87pnid9ok5.fsf@sturm.com.au> User-agent: mu4e 1.2.0; emacs 26.3 From: Ricardo Wurmus In-reply-to: <87pnid9ok5.fsf@sturm.com.au> X-URL: https://elephly.net X-PGP-Key: https://elephly.net/rekado.pubkey X-PGP-Fingerprint: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 22:23:39 +0200 Message-ID: <87tv0m1ar8.fsf@elephly.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-ZohoMailClient: External Received-SPF: pass client-ip=136.143.188.53; envelope-from=rekado@elephly.net; helo=sender4-of-o53.zoho.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/05/11 16:23:45 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 3.11 and newer [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: bug-guix@gnu.org List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: jonathan@terracrypt.net Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" X-Scanner: scn0 X-Spam-Score: 1.99 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail (rsa verify failed) header.d=elephly.net header.s=zoho header.b=F7fx0xM4; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org X-Scan-Result: default: False [1.99 / 13.00]; GENERIC_REPUTATION(0.00)[-0.54005935100156]; DWL_DNSWL_FAIL(0.00)[209.51.188.17:server fail]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:209.51.188.0/24:c]; R_DKIM_REJECT(1.00)[elephly.net:s=zoho]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; ARC_REJECT(2.00)[signature check failed: fail, {[1] = sig:zohomail.com:reject}]; IP_REPUTATION_HAM(0.00)[asn: 22989(0.07), country: US(-0.00), ip: 209.51.188.17(-0.54)]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[elephly.net:-]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; MX_GOOD(-0.50)[cached: eggs.gnu.org]; MAILLIST(-0.20)[mailman]; FORGED_RECIPIENTS_MAILLIST(0.00)[]; RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS_PBL(0.00)[84.173.74.57:received]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:22989, ipnet:209.51.188.0/24, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; TAGGED_FROM(0.00)[larch=yhetil.org]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[rekado@elephly.net,bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org]; URIBL_BLOCKED(0.00)[flathub.org:url,sturm.com.au:email]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[elephly.net]; HAS_LIST_UNSUB(-0.01)[]; DNSWL_BLOCKED(0.00)[209.51.188.17:from]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_POSSIBLE(0.00)[209.51.188.17:from]; RCVD_COUNT_SEVEN(0.00)[10]; FORGED_SENDER_MAILLIST(0.00)[] X-TUID: slvfwAKEJMtr Ben Sturmfels writes: > On Sun, 05 May 2019, Jonathan Frederickson wrote: > >> I'm attempting to use Flatpak on my Guix system, and I'm experiencing >> segfaults when attempting to add a remote repo. Provided below are the >> output of the command I'm attempting to run, as well as some info >> about my system. > > I learnt on #guix IRC that flatpak works when run with the --user flag: > > $ flatpak --user remote-add --if-not-exists flathub https://flathub.org/repo/flathub.flatpakrepo > $ flatpak install flathub org.gnome.Builder > $ flatpak run org.gnome.Builder > > The segfaulting behaviour is still a bug in my opinion, because it's > extremely user un-friendly, and the requirement for --user is not > obvious. Yes, segfaults are always bugs, unless you forced the program to load garbage. I traced the execution of flatpak and saw that it segfaults right after failing to created /var/lib/flatpak. Sure enough, after creating it manually the program no longer segfaults. -- Ricardo