From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: zerodaysfordays@sdf.lonestar.org (Jakob L. Kreuze) Subject: Re: Inscrutable error when using =?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=9Cguix_deploy?= =?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=9D?= Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2019 13:55:54 -0400 Message-ID: <87zhjy5txx.fsf@sdf.lonestar.org> References: <87sgptjkb9.fsf@elephly.net> <87blwgjc8w.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45113) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1i1aGf-0007Mk-SD for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Aug 2019 13:56:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1i1aGd-000655-UB for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Aug 2019 13:56:00 -0400 Received: from mx.sdf.org ([205.166.94.20]:59681) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1i1aGd-00064m-NH for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Aug 2019 13:55:59 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87blwgjc8w.fsf@elephly.net> (Ricardo Wurmus's message of "Fri, 23 Aug 2019 14:29:51 +0200") 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: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: guix-devel --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Ricardo and Alex, Ricardo Wurmus writes: >> This error, in general shape, looks very much like an error I kept getti= ng >> when first "deploying" to a guix server. I found that doing a pull on the >> server, followed by a system reconfigure then allowed me to actually >> successfully run deploy afterwards. >> >> I'm not sure what causes that, but thought perhaps it was to do with >> running an older version of guix on the target server before pulling? > > Thanks, it=E2=80=99s possible that this is in fact the case here. > > The error is really hard to diagnose, though, because there=E2=80=99s no = file to > inspect. It would be good if =E2=80=9Cguix deploy=E2=80=9D could catch e= rrors stemming > from the use of older Guixes on the target and throw a more instructive > error message. I saw this specific error message a few times while I was building 'guix deploy'. It means something's been printed that can't be read, which (might) be the case if something doesn't have a G-Expression compiler. My money is on the target not having a reader for , but as you've observed, the error reporting makes this incredibly difficult to diagnose. > @Jakob: What do you think? Can we check for required Guix facilities on > the remote and abort if they don=E2=80=99t exist? I think that's a good idea, especially since we've had issues with deploying to older Guixes before (with the 'user-homes' service). Regards, Jakob --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEa1VJLOiXAjQ2BGSm9Qb9Fp2P2VoFAl1heioACgkQ9Qb9Fp2P 2Vplcw/8CdbxKlOO82PIyk6aDp2UqN3T6GtLN3+fuh887t2uCLW9oapqNbKyRe18 1ZIjsWAwIDC1fS23l1UHIZiJ83hE0dGsisfvt/5UlqcSA06+1Xkpxp6+de1iX8dm Kuv4o0ZSJYjFvbQSsrF8nmdXfrw5xXZiylUHfqaCB10qON+I7BiycWYBCQPVEUkE QYCdNfAoJnFlU1q/MDYXk1IJdEaeZ7OrgI7SJi/jloaVsxG/pWaL2AHHgtf1/JJb /FydrvTDNbmLjkQRYr6oIHsDJpeJN6zgQgMbuukKtaG9+jtSAMKijkNfFZEIvpjb xV//ufGZ9M2cfcSHKijoL7u8AKoOwKbh8vXSylvzf4JZV5HsRIVMiXMHIUPIaqbC i8yj4Kt13B4XnhTlwehrzqIVgrQDVVrrCxGFkKlNVQTrOu3drYR58xrpkfAJ/JKo LYLLfJWhtQhvkt6M1MRseKzj/K7/Des7GmT7HUbFNvBVC+ZG6fOi4ZU4x2tq0v4Z uT8tC/bzzgPyV9+0cpit2DY+JkM6YBNTN+wPGpUoRroVMG0cd5Fv/bkQ0d844VBo wdjYIQZVBvsDjP3ZffILO1tgoPPjR4kmTmTiyR7ofU+NH7e018I1uvVopGE8pa3h xg77faNmZl9Q/11M63h24ezgme8NFET74PdlxdFsiM2Wfz7rq0A= =BeDG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--