From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:50916) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gxDnt-00033W-DH for gwl-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 11:36:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gxDnr-0002iG-Ja for gwl-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 11:36:00 -0500 Received: from sender-of-o51.zoho.com ([135.84.80.216]:21073) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gxDnq-0002Ep-SV for gwl-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 11:35:59 -0500 References: <87pnrl40j8.fsf@elephly.net> From: Ricardo Wurmus In-reply-to: Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 17:35:09 +0100 Message-ID: <87y3673hoi.fsf@elephly.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: `--run=simple` error ? List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: gwl-devel-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "gwl-devel" To: zimoun Cc: gwl-devel@gnu.org zimoun writes: >> =E2=80=A6 that=E2=80=99s likely due to ABI change in Guix. Have you cle= ared all .go >> files? Do you still get this when GUILE_LOAD_COMPILED_PATH and >> GUILE_LOAD_PATH are unset? > > All .go where ? > In the GWL checkout, yes. It was the first thing I tried. :-) > Otherwise, no I have not cleared any .go files. Which ones I need to clea= r? > > From my understanding, the issue comes from: GWL compiles with > /gnu/store/9alic3caqhay3h8mx4iihpmyj6ymqpcx-guile-2.2.4/bin/guile > > But GWL needs guix modules and these modules have been compiled with > another Guile, I guess. > /gnu/store/r658y3cgpnf99nxjxqgjiaizx20ac4k0-guile-2.2.4/bin/guile > > And the ABI issue perhaps comes from that. No, the version of Guile is not at fault here. It=E2=80=99s about the vers= ion of Guix. (The GWL builds with Guix as an input.) I=E2=80=99m not sure what=E2=80=99s the best way to install the GWL, to be = honest. Should it be a mere channel that extends the *current* Guix? If it is built with Guix then it refers to an older version of Guix (namely the older version that is available through Guix itself), so that=E2=80=99s not actually desirable. I think it should work with =E2=80=9Cguix pull=E2=80=9D to stay current and= ensure that it has access to the same packages that a user would see on the command line. Currently, this only works through a channel. I don=E2=80=99t really like that, though. -- Ricardo