From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: bug#22039: [PATCH] 'guix system reconfigure' must start/restart/stop services Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2018 19:12:38 +0200 Message-ID: <87tvn9b0qh.fsf@gnu.org> References: <874mg6rsjl.fsf@gnu.org> <87tvnhxr20.fsf@zancanaro.id.au> <87sh2tijb2.fsf@gnu.org> <87va7pza4p.fsf@zancanaro.id.au> 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]:41144) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fw9Zt-0001EW-O0 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Sep 2018 13:20:56 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fw9SI-0005Qg-K4 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Sep 2018 13:13:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:37054) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fw9SI-0005QW-Gh for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Sep 2018 13:13:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fw9SI-0000Kl-6v for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Sep 2018 13:13:02 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87va7pza4p.fsf@zancanaro.id.au> (Carlo Zancanaro's message of "Sat, 01 Sep 2018 22:15:50 +1000") 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: Carlo Zancanaro Cc: 22039@debbugs.gnu.org Heya, Carlo Zancanaro skribis: > On Sat, Sep 01 2018, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >> I=E2=80=99d like to make sure we understand the story with =E2=80=98EINT= R-safe=E2=80=99, but >> after that I=E2=80=99m happy to push a release. > > Do you have any thoughts about why it could be failing, or things I > could investigate? I don't know where to start. First, could you check (in a VM) whether the boot failure is reproducible when that patch that removes =E2=80=98EINTR-safe=E2=80=99 is a= pplied? If it=E2=80=99s 100% reproducible, could you share the VM=E2=80=99s output? I don=E2=80=99t know what the problem might be but hopefully that=E2=80=99l= l give us a starting point. > I have done this, but now it seems a bit overwhelming how many > services would need to be manually restarted. My modified code writes > a message like this: [...] > The same list is printed every time on my system, because the diffing > is only on the level of the canonical-name. Most of these services are > being "replaced" by services that are exactly the same, so they don't > really need to be restarted. I don't really know what to do about > this, Even if it were fixed, on an actual upgrade I assume many of > these services would be different, and thus would be printed > legitimately. Indeed. In addition, some low-level services such as file system mounts cannot be restarted without rebooting, so it=E2=80=99s not useful to mention them. Perhaps we should simply print (1) the list of services that were restarted, and (2) a message saying that users should explicitly run =E2=80=9Cherd restart SERVICE=E2=80=9D to upgrade other services. WDYT? > I'm also confused why some of these things are services (like > host-name). =E2=80=98host-name=E2=80=99 could (should?) be an activation snippet. Thank you! Ludo=E2=80=99.