From unknown Mon Jun 23 14:58:51 2025 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.509 (Entity 5.509) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: bug#25852 <25852@debbugs.gnu.org> To: bug#25852 <25852@debbugs.gnu.org> Subject: Status: Users not updating their installations of Guix Reply-To: bug#25852 <25852@debbugs.gnu.org> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 21:58:51 +0000 retitle 25852 Users not updating their installations of Guix reassign 25852 guix submitter 25852 Leo Famulari severity 25852 important thanks From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Feb 23 16:12:14 2017 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Feb 2017 21:12:14 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53296 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ch0gQ-000518-Jk for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:12:14 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:38474) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ch0gO-00050t-64 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:12:12 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ch0gE-0004pM-UA for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:12:07 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:41532) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ch0gE-0004pI-Qm for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:12:02 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57668) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ch0gD-0004KG-F3 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:12:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ch0gA-0004of-87 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:12:01 -0500 Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]:35698) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ch0gA-0004ob-4I for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:11:58 -0500 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBF2C209F9; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:11:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:11:57 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h= content-type:date:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:to :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=6f6 hnyJvSxQbbHEXANf7S+CLBb8=; b=pCmemcFudWogxQ8PBiXvl0kd7i6gzc8pYuz kzDfj3y8fP39F//nUzBUm7F57o2ewX0v87yay3GBBDabvbrDdx7RPC3Um2lGtwGG qJug46ZM8M4/JaVNgdepmfGQXYcjmUeT3e94ONrOTHhQjc+khKohSYfh9p0jcCCd VgHw3Mi4= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:message-id :mime-version:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=6f6hnyJvSxQbbHEXANf7S+CLBb8=; b=ts4Ic qwhtdz5ghmp9aEkiZtOejJ5NgW8fNU80mJncamI4SGaggRVV73WhQin0/yZpmAEL wQlTfxQYDpKXUoIRBvHwaOJpN0kkNdVnu0Djly8Jl7/mFNI1PYZMJfMJfi2qZjqL mUM6qZBmi8Wh8D5p15PmApgm5MBNB5GufbvHkQ= X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: b1SEgcZHvo3D9m/1BPuwnH+VSnpLp7lqfysGk7Rt/Zr1 1487884317 Received: from localhost (c-73-188-17-148.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [73.188.17.148]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7DCCE7E0D1 for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:11:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:11:56 -0500 From: Leo Famulari To: bug-guix@gnu.org Subject: Users not updating their installations of Guix Message-ID: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="cNdxnHkX5QqsyA0e" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -4.1 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -4.1 (----) --cNdxnHkX5QqsyA0e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In my opinion, the recent bug #25775 (Can't install packages after guix pull) [0] exposed a sort of meta-bug: there are a significant number of users who were still using the guix-daemon from 0.10.0. It seems unlikely that they have been updating all of root's packages except for the guix package. Rather, I bet they never updated root's packages at all, for ~1 year. I think this is a serious documentation bug. [0] https://bugs.gnu.org/25775 --cNdxnHkX5QqsyA0e Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEsFFZSPHn08G5gDigJkb6MLrKfwgFAlivUBwACgkQJkb6MLrK fwi/yhAAlelolOt1nHcux0mRJzTUOtnRy6/sxvk1CjUXlkJcZk7HZ41urXrVdHPw sz8ZEbVvUCMBnD13N/mKVCqrc4LWxSJDd7aFqoNDcmiAb2gFNIE59R5shlRhD+JB sJq+EV2uV0MF1mFpOLMoWwjnPhijOn3tU+pR+4+P4pmsW99QKuLqYt9moNkemmoI r/ffnD5gzlB5wayDpJbod/lz8d7Apv+uKdS/54dZL1uokAsznnSUgBG59Bkq5LDm qCAsorCqOZDEl3JwEMnpjncXybVh7MaGT3njcsdZly7tBwNxEAMYyy1Dn4kGvHrX xspZCS92fwstYr3wxHm6uK+Ra2nG38cuDLDfvrx8mnoVLPAmHKfP9a/35SNyZFPY ejn5g+H/5nbqBbYrPrnSOdTm4On9Wif2TmJL5ZfOMuD2GAn7z+SsafyYse0rlPWC zxVaBA5G9CqUR2qpVj/jwq0DM5l5Nsthcq8J/XCO6iHh2pIiNTpOroT7J+MD4eL1 gaj367MdGx++llkgwgGKsR32PWKsg9bIrcTNMWohc/nvJN9VRQ2Oj5UjFvqq3GVV RXRbrWe8nn/X1gAydWnhQszfEI9a6pXBzd9l3BG2TawabPnoFR84X+aVsBo26hMT 1ZXSvWHqZwEa2UE/DlV5FtTd8WDMUl6gG+Wga8eLjsRyHpykLv4= =GAAa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --cNdxnHkX5QqsyA0e-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Feb 24 00:46:32 2017 Received: (at 25852) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Feb 2017 05:46:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53448 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ch8i7-0004zY-Nf for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 00:46:32 -0500 Received: from mail.thebird.nl ([95.154.246.10]:49076) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ch8i5-0004zJ-7E for 25852@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 00:46:30 -0500 Received: by mail.thebird.nl (Postfix, from userid 502) id C4D1D4001A; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 06:42:56 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 05:42:56 +0000 From: Pjotr Prins To: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix Message-ID: <20170224054256.GA3317@mail.thebird.nl> References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01) X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 25852 Cc: 25852@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) We can make package 'daemon' aware if we provide the meta data in channels, see 22629@debbugs.gnu.org. guix package could also suggest upgrading with even numbers. Say running 0.12 guix on 0.10 guix-daemon. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Mar 02 13:16:54 2017 Received: (at 25852) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Mar 2017 18:16:54 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36858 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cjVHZ-0002YP-UR for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 13:16:54 -0500 Received: from mail3.protonmail.ch ([185.70.40.25]:48856) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cjVHX-0002YF-AJ for 25852@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 13:16:52 -0500 Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 13:16:45 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=default; t=1488478608; bh=7Ec7QYh1JL1jS2UPieRiOdxycHFlW5kvqeSgYIZ5zV4=; h=To:From:Reply-To:Subject:Feedback-ID:From; b=AzUE3PaTHS7Am9aCPnYpmSxIsarFnXiyXstCvD4nXYrlYjr9wrEZvFhNCDoHZQdnL +FGjZVcRGNKcgfJXl/l2vOMQrRe5LLLupHVgJXSWrjO2vEnEVdwRF4lz3u7HLCffv/ pPfNZlUZEQv9Q/iDwHbEhTBh9D8kJCQEMp6PjrmQ= To: "25852@debbugs.gnu.org" <25852@debbugs.gnu.org> From: sirgazil Subject: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix Message-ID: Feedback-ID: V5CKP1bWHRPIeLF42bwjwazD7kSlIOkAdTdlSGUxkHI8LdaA5RWPvWO_bJ8v5SQF62_ePkCM6vZ61E3zELYRBA==:Ext:ProtonMail MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="b1_7f0ea528776f3fcbc9e5c684d2791f14" X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,MISSING_DATE, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on mail3.protonmail.ch X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 25852 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: sirgazil Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --b1_7f0ea528776f3fcbc9e5c684d2791f14 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 WWVzLCBJIGFncmVlIHdpdGggYm90aCBvZiB5b3UuCgpJJ2QgbGlrZSB0byBzZWUgYSBzZWN0aW9u IGluIHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudGF0aW9uLCByZWZlcmVuY2VkIGZyb20gdGhlIGluc3RhbGxhdGlvbiBp bnN0cnVjdGlvbnMsIHdpdGggcHJlc2NyaXB0aW9ucyBhYm91dCBrZWVwaW5nIEd1aXgoU0QpIHVw IHRvIGRhdGUuIFNheSAiS2VlcGluZyBhIEd1aXgoU0QpIHN5c3RlbSB1cCB0byBkYXRlIi4gSXQg Y291bGQgaGF2ZSwgZm9yIGV4YW1wbGUsIHdoYXQgdG8gZG8gYXMgYSByb290IHVzZXIsIHdoYXQg dG8gZG8gYXMgYSBub24tcHJpdmlsZWdlZCB1c2VyLgoKQWxzbywgSSB1c3VhbGx5IHN1YnNjcmli ZSB0byB0aGUgbmV3cyBmZWVkIG9mIHRoZSBzb2Z0d2FyZSBJIHVzZSByZWd1bGFybHkuIFdpdGgg RGViaWFuLCBmb3IgZXhhbXBsZSwgSSB1cGRhdGUgdGhlIHN5c3RlbSBldmVyeSB0aW1lIEkgZ2V0 IG5vdGlmaWVkIG9mIG5ldyB1cGRhdGVzLlsxXSBJJ20gc3Vic2NyaWJlZCB0byBHdWl4IG5ld3Mg dG9vLCBidXQgSSBoYXZlbid0IHNlZW4gcG9zdHMgcmVjb21tZW5kaW5nIHVzZXJzIHRvIHVwZGF0 ZSB0aGVpciBzeXN0ZW1zIHRvIGZpeCBzZWN1cml0eSBpc3N1ZXMgKGV4Y2VwdCBmb3IgcmVsZWFz ZSBhbm5vdW5jZW1lbnRzKS4gVGhhdCdzIHNvbWV0aGluZyBJJ2QgbGlrZSB0byBzZWUgdG9vLgoK R3VpeCB3ZWJzaXRlIGlzIGN1cnJlbnRseSB1c2luZyBIYXVudCwgd2hpY2ggYWxsb3dzIHRvIGdl bmVyYXRlIGZlZWRzIHBlciB0YWcgaW4gdGhlIGJsb2csIHNvIHdlIGNvdWxkIGV2ZW4gcmVjb21t ZW5kIHVzZXJzIGluIHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudGF0aW9uIHRvIHN1YnNjcmliZSB0byBhICJzZWN1cml0 eSIgbmV3cyBmZWVkIHRvIGtlZXAgaW5mb3JtZWQgb2YgaW1wb3J0YW50IHVwZGF0ZXMuCgpNeSAy wqIsCgoKWzFdOiBodHRwczovL3d3dy5kZWJpYW4ub3JnL05ld3MvMjAxNy8yMDE3MDExNAoKCgot LS0KaHR0cHM6Ly9zaXJnYXppbC5iaXRidWNrZXQuaW8v --b1_7f0ea528776f3fcbc9e5c684d2791f14 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGRpdj5ZZXMsIEkgYWdyZWUgd2l0aCBib3RoIG9mIHlvdS48YnI+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48YnI+PC9k aXY+PGRpdj5JJ2QgbGlrZSB0byBzZWUgYSBzZWN0aW9uIGluIHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudGF0aW9uLCBy ZWZlcmVuY2VkIGZyb20gdGhlIGluc3RhbGxhdGlvbiBpbnN0cnVjdGlvbnMsIHdpdGggcHJlc2Ny aXB0aW9ucyBhYm91dCBrZWVwaW5nIEd1aXgoU0QpIHVwIHRvIGRhdGUuIFNheSAiS2VlcGluZyBh IEd1aXgoU0QpIHN5c3RlbSB1cCB0byBkYXRlIi4gSXQgY291bGQgaGF2ZSwgZm9yIGV4YW1wbGUs IHdoYXQgdG8gZG8gYXMgYSByb290IHVzZXIsIHdoYXQgdG8gZG8gYXMgYSBub24tcHJpdmlsZWdl ZCB1c2VyLjxicj48L2Rpdj48ZGl2Pjxicj48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PkFsc28sIEkgdXN1YWxseSBzdWJz Y3JpYmUgdG8gdGhlIG5ld3MgZmVlZCBvZiB0aGUgc29mdHdhcmUgSSB1c2UgcmVndWxhcmx5LiBX aXRoIERlYmlhbiwgZm9yIGV4YW1wbGUsIEkgdXBkYXRlIHRoZSBzeXN0ZW0gZXZlcnkgdGltZSBJ IGdldCBub3RpZmllZCBvZiBuZXcgdXBkYXRlcy5bMV0gSSdtIHN1YnNjcmliZWQgdG8gR3VpeCBu ZXdzIHRvbywgYnV0IEkgaGF2ZW4ndCBzZWVuIHBvc3RzIHJlY29tbWVuZGluZyB1c2VycyB0byB1 cGRhdGUgdGhlaXIgc3lzdGVtcyB0byBmaXggc2VjdXJpdHkgaXNzdWVzIChleGNlcHQgZm9yIHJl bGVhc2UgYW5ub3VuY2VtZW50cykuIFRoYXQncyBzb21ldGhpbmcgSSdkIGxpa2UgdG8gc2VlIHRv by48YnI+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48YnI+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj5HdWl4IHdlYnNpdGUgaXMgY3VycmVudGx5 IHVzaW5nIEhhdW50LCB3aGljaCBhbGxvd3MgdG8gZ2VuZXJhdGUgZmVlZHMgcGVyIHRhZyBpbiB0 aGUgYmxvZywgc28gd2UgY291bGQgZXZlbiByZWNvbW1lbmQgdXNlcnMgaW4gdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50 YXRpb24gdG8gc3Vic2NyaWJlIHRvIGEgInNlY3VyaXR5IiBuZXdzIGZlZWQgdG8ga2VlcCBpbmZv cm1lZCBvZiBpbXBvcnRhbnQgdXBkYXRlcy48YnI+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48YnI+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj5N eSAywqIsPGJyPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PGJyPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PGJyPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+WzFdOiA8 YSBocmVmPSJodHRwczovL3d3dy5kZWJpYW4ub3JnL05ld3MvMjAxNy8yMDE3MDExNCI+aHR0cHM6 Ly93d3cuZGViaWFuLm9yZy9OZXdzLzIwMTcvMjAxNzAxMTQ8L2E+PGJyPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PGJy PjwvZGl2PjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9InByb3Rvbm1haWxfc2lnbmF0dXJlX2Jsb2NrICI+PGRpdiBjbGFz cz0icHJvdG9ubWFpbF9zaWduYXR1cmVfYmxvY2stdXNlciAiPjxkaXY+LS0tPGJyPjwvZGl2Pjxk aXY+aHR0cHM6Ly9zaXJnYXppbC5iaXRidWNrZXQuaW8vPGJyPjwvZGl2PjwvZGl2PjwvZGl2Pjxk aXY+PGJyPjwvZGl2Pg== --b1_7f0ea528776f3fcbc9e5c684d2791f14-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Mar 04 15:29:47 2017 Received: (at 25852) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Mar 2017 20:29:47 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40273 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ckGJH-0006Jf-Jy for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 04 Mar 2017 15:29:47 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:36929) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ckGJF-0006JW-DQ for 25852@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 04 Mar 2017 15:29:45 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay1.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15792AB46; Sat, 4 Mar 2017 20:29:43 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2017 21:29:41 +0100 From: =?utf-8?B?VG9tw6HFoSDEjGVjaA==?= To: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix Message-ID: <20170304202941.sgeprky4l2lda7xt@penguin> References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="kwyw76hjo5yzs57l" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01) X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 25852 Cc: 25852@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) --kwyw76hjo5yzs57l Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 04:11:56PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: >In my opinion, the recent bug #25775 (Can't install packages after guix >pull) [0] exposed a sort of meta-bug: there are a significant number of >users who were still using the guix-daemon from 0.10.0. > >It seems unlikely that they have been updating all of root's >packages except for the guix package. Rather, I bet they never updated >root's packages at all, for ~1 year. > >I think this is a serious documentation bug. One problem may be that Guix on top of foreign distribution is not able to update itself. I still offer guix-0.12 RPM package for openSUSE installation as there was no new release. Guix is able to update itself via `guix pull' but it doesn't affect system installation of guix-daemon. It would help splitting releases of Guix and guix-daemon. Best regards, S_W --kwyw76hjo5yzs57l Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEDOrssfr9jDQthC2PSiPjT6AzQ20FAli7I6cACgkQSiPjT6Az Q23obQ//RUTpI9mvaLPwkCeqNypeAZoIaim9pCz9oBbLyZy9Cc2EH+FbZQZ7yy13 AJXYambi/AMoOFN4m6aspXzj1BiKpm3xxGl8iT5gS4V9jRQGKo42jllZKNe4GaMY cMHqXHcNvlrA/bV4d6FK4xXxHWC8NNA11Xb2UL7y90KbJ/bKt+gB0ryjUcsV1ftL 2/M9E6cO682JEibuqxQxqmPr1aWyO0wyyHnBra25MXHByQpqgvtEpxv4bNBOG9bR 5WpaC7EqAp4UxQ9ihiXKIUkbIacXG5l6ovPx254MIawaC4Kf3sJEZdUpH9uuA0c6 Dzp21fnbM5WbkeNKyRIzquL5PFDeJI+26zBkPNss7U67/gp4gdaz5imjICrY36Vl uZ5U1XwbNJqxT55Rrn9gyGjhf4huedtwZHl7fA8xibitYyFPZd4pEWg1CbXUuAT/ OtsmnPCmMYMLiMc5znm/RjFV2Oiv5lrZ5DD4yyq6QtBuIjevxXmZhkAZamNwOrGv QXvOYFb7a2TWD4AmwcFE3Vu0SyJjbPkAUgnTpa8zDM5+lbL534flvsmD9ztXW0yU P/DI7MF50eDBATyJuOsZ8bYB/m3PYCJ2ZcijV5nQsl2dLlYePn5XxouC9oegmMf6 b7X7SBhy/0BWgBe6ZcKnIS3rvDsrLL3DTCPKpUWAIn8IukJbFls= =wqZ6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --kwyw76hjo5yzs57l-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Mar 04 17:44:02 2017 Received: (at 25852) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Mar 2017 22:44:02 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40341 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ckIPC-0002uO-At for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 04 Mar 2017 17:44:02 -0500 Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]:47295) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ckIPA-0002ts-Td for 25852@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 04 Mar 2017 17:44:01 -0500 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB8AD20B7F; Sat, 4 Mar 2017 17:44:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 04 Mar 2017 17:44:00 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h= cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=kUKrAb/RCLWIEJSTVkjRmFI4Tiw=; b=Qs54ep iH3FF+B6goPRM7srtdINpZiFRBYezCeWJt8QF2JKya7CRw8fJjCPkez3CtXu/164 V4Lw9lHFHf6nYeO7XEwJ3Y2cWwimyx9xt5oKIYniwfFqw+3dwKahQwAQNYLAdsal 23JXlAp6k8t9bbktHZB8cBpDLcIqr71oDCJYE= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=kUKrAb/RCLWIEJ STVkjRmFI4Tiw=; b=YHmSoTBq9Da7SfpC1S3VxY6sH2Eq4cHY/n3Ep2zygTTVzN VQquBJW6TRH7qr/PCCtP7sJvZ3MAmIG8XI+arndoGYxQnt4lPzQKbkI5CvLiQ1kw Q9v/pMNB/Nfr3hbdqCfjVuw9EvcW5lXFZ2+kDX8Yd2zBZIfCXN9NDLeSDO5wM= X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: Mo40xLaKOdhE3Fgi2W/Gg4qbxTTlOqQSQV7Q1n2X/xFx 1488667440 Received: from localhost (c-73-188-17-148.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [73.188.17.148]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 71B0D7E53D; Sat, 4 Mar 2017 17:44:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2017 17:43:59 -0500 From: Leo Famulari To: =?utf-8?B?VG9tw6HFoSDEjGVjaA==?= Subject: Re: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix Message-ID: <20170304224359.GA18077@jasmine> References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> <20170304202941.sgeprky4l2lda7xt@penguin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Dxnq1zWXvFF0Q93v" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170304202941.sgeprky4l2lda7xt@penguin> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23) X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 25852 Cc: 25852@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) --Dxnq1zWXvFF0Q93v Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 09:29:41PM +0100, Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 =C4=8Cech wrote: > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 04:11:56PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: > > In my opinion, the recent bug #25775 (Can't install packages after guix > > pull) [0] exposed a sort of meta-bug: there are a significant number of > > users who were still using the guix-daemon from 0.10.0. > >=20 > > It seems unlikely that they have been updating all of root's > > packages except for the guix package. Rather, I bet they never updated > > root's packages at all, for ~1 year. > >=20 > > I think this is a serious documentation bug. >=20 > One problem may be that Guix on top of foreign distribution is not > able to update itself. I can update my Guix-on-Debian systems without trouble, using the normal `guix pull && guix package -u .` method. > I still offer guix-0.12 RPM package for openSUSE installation as there > was no new release. Guix is able to update itself via `guix pull' but > it doesn't affect system installation of guix-daemon. Interesting, I didn't know there was a distro package for openSUSE. For that package, the root user cannot update the guix-daemon? --Dxnq1zWXvFF0Q93v Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEsFFZSPHn08G5gDigJkb6MLrKfwgFAli7Qy8ACgkQJkb6MLrK fwiV9Q//Ul86yry+KhL6pu0sb93cClkYoDq3qBCBqqBd3NACu6K7x8QkA0nUkWCg sdaWVz81t5YWus/L4K25KxINPztxsgZjg2cuGOYN3MpKTM7iY6clHuayAF2AnShh tHzWPvb/EKOjzqSIvEuafbdOJKZVdvX2HsDin4mu5eW45RPCM0qVgWlaM16OXLWq aRRwOeemXj7W0q2ZXm6PvufhCVA/NXqmBUNlc1D6yMd1VNluARHwdOHQY3gUEoLs PKYuG0c1UJotGAoiN4fFVLHTP/dszK8XIMXr/k1m95dvLHGaOW90DPNk1OBwau+Z poijk2PBUpuQErbqB4mZtFxIllR0v/QhzRcs9B06JOrPRbQULQWu69wnrpiA5jnj 4+RGXv9AUVhtfAAEcikQ1FX1XfVduiWVukpAotfOd0R5bMp5jEdKiWP5BGA1dfIi 9iw9u9lVrdlcG9ElPBQ3S7opA4WcnNZ04e62PDWrcUKQ7pQUU2ZBbIrrB8tjgUAn j9wrBTQtP2SliOsdYY2rn/1gp5eH54FyWqTkIybHCsQBre/otXb/rfsYgXnVIYXQ Wd4cWXut9ZPmnUKbgeCnCtOHTnaCK6u7IlprP1hNxBNmM6jQvONHNzn/y2zzYPxx OHzZxh++KfZkXGzn32PHgt5Zej/BzzK16MluEDSIG3goxQe/Q3c= =G4KP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Dxnq1zWXvFF0Q93v-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Mar 05 02:56:49 2017 Received: (at 25852) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Mar 2017 07:56:49 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40526 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ckR29-0001Mv-Iy for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 05 Mar 2017 02:56:49 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:50838) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ckR27-0001Mm-4J for 25852@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 05 Mar 2017 02:56:47 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay1.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3BA3AAA3; Sun, 5 Mar 2017 07:56:43 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 08:56:41 +0100 From: =?utf-8?B?VG9tw6HFoSDEjGVjaA==?= To: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix Message-ID: <20170305075641.76f4mznuod2gztdi@penguin> References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> <20170304202941.sgeprky4l2lda7xt@penguin> <20170304224359.GA18077@jasmine> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="lpabtqld4m25do4v" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170304224359.GA18077@jasmine> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01) X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 25852 Cc: 25852@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) --lpabtqld4m25do4v Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 05:43:59PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: >On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 09:29:41PM +0100, Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 =C4=8Cech wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 04:11:56PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: >> > In my opinion, the recent bug #25775 (Can't install packages after guix >> > pull) [0] exposed a sort of meta-bug: there are a significant number of >> > users who were still using the guix-daemon from 0.10.0. >> > >> > It seems unlikely that they have been updating all of root's >> > packages except for the guix package. Rather, I bet they never updated >> > root's packages at all, for ~1 year. >> > >> > I think this is a serious documentation bug. >> >> One problem may be that Guix on top of foreign distribution is not >> able to update itself. > >I can update my Guix-on-Debian systems without trouble, using the normal >`guix pull && guix package -u .` method. I'm sorry, I meant guix-daemon here. >> I still offer guix-0.12 RPM package for openSUSE installation as there >> was no new release. Guix is able to update itself via `guix pull' but >> it doesn't affect system installation of guix-daemon. > >Interesting, I didn't know there was a distro package for openSUSE. I'm trying to maintain it for quite a long time already... It's part of distribution (but not on installation medium :) >For that package, the root user cannot update the guix-daemon? root user can do anything, but that is not the point here. The point is that root user interaction is _required_. I may alter guix-daemon service file to use /root/.guix-profile/... path that that is also unsafe hack relying that root user will not break his stuff. Splitting packages into 2 could be another way to do it, better, quite natu= ral. And IMHO the best and also "Guix way" could be making guix-daemon aware of possible newer versions in /gnu/store and execing them instead... Best regards, S_W --lpabtqld4m25do4v Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEDOrssfr9jDQthC2PSiPjT6AzQ20FAli7xLMACgkQSiPjT6Az Q23z2g//Uddvqj8/53RYOwzqFC3j+5o2UmtTO2YlRAz1Vf3+k8z44gg8s5LoSAQ4 tUiYOy7ex36pR1xIFEBaxeBoZowg1xCI43nXoj76ALaRoZVSIihPJrRpaUSCmfge GCSKy3y10HRJo69iYVwjthuQDY7euiMJF0LZa2OsqCaRF1T992oIBbEtGlxnykny Yf+3VfrMGClcMJxV0bepVtQ90iORvrPAIWv1C5Ii/4G32upnB2TBeUe0A8vXREjo m2i5UGeP18M29SsLkJppwC6Sytim9yv29xZTL3zedxbwOyvfQ3L5nRt73470vn0c ZTcl/gVtfp1NKRRpiIbS5V/C9qpXif17IrVmgcG5slDVkc/xA6dBhxx2Iby6wCVu Ofix1JUM9oqYPRZQKHZh3e+DSuY0z52xcU4asZGlP5dqfpU3xOQYnFXAXNFZycVP sE8qWyv0OFvtFtqHyWsrKdOQOl7+Vt3scLScOikqR/FCp2Chdn//b3TTEuzdSDej IoKNGnbE+WCSxEQPM6SYhsEeF6v1iipD85NdB/ragDuXllUto8b1TmQCBir0PdOu edNbo06h3Wpx3O1WmbiVOSwU7z9LhlA2Yfnuq58cOfCuGvLiQPycsY9droJgYrLJ 4bhUsYk2/t2R3NccEgCmKXuUCBAsZwm+EkYWFwj9m1SuiiJnte8= =WLMY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --lpabtqld4m25do4v-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Mar 05 04:28:53 2017 Received: (at 25852) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Mar 2017 09:28:54 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40537 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ckSTF-0003Zq-Pd for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 05 Mar 2017 04:28:53 -0500 Received: from mail.thebird.nl ([95.154.246.10]:36220) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ckSTE-0003Ze-7N for 25852@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 05 Mar 2017 04:28:52 -0500 Received: by mail.thebird.nl (Postfix, from userid 502) id 23E2940050; Sun, 5 Mar 2017 10:25:11 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 09:25:11 +0000 From: Pjotr Prins To: =?utf-8?B?VG9tw6HFoSDEjGVjaA==?= Subject: Re: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix Message-ID: <20170305092511.GA9142@mail.thebird.nl> References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> <20170304202941.sgeprky4l2lda7xt@penguin> <20170304224359.GA18077@jasmine> <20170305075641.76f4mznuod2gztdi@penguin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20170305075641.76f4mznuod2gztdi@penguin> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01) X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 25852 Cc: 25852@debbugs.gnu.org, Leo Famulari X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 08:56:41AM +0100, Tomáš Čech wrote: > And IMHO the best and also "Guix way" could be making guix-daemon aware of > possible newer versions in /gnu/store and execing them instead... Giving a loud warning should really be sufficient. The Guix way is to have a system not surprise us by shifting the sand under our feet ;) -- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Mar 05 04:43:33 2017 Received: (at 25852) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Mar 2017 09:43:33 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40541 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ckShR-0003wc-20 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 05 Mar 2017 04:43:33 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:53730) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ckShQ-0003wU-0c for 25852@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 05 Mar 2017 04:43:32 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2169AAA3; Sun, 5 Mar 2017 09:43:30 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 10:43:27 +0100 From: =?utf-8?B?VG9tw6HFoSDEjGVjaA==?= To: Pjotr Prins Subject: Re: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix Message-ID: <20170305094327.3m67twgmae6nyloq@penguin> References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> <20170304202941.sgeprky4l2lda7xt@penguin> <20170304224359.GA18077@jasmine> <20170305075641.76f4mznuod2gztdi@penguin> <20170305092511.GA9142@mail.thebird.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="l22j7hlw2s2g3ajh" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170305092511.GA9142@mail.thebird.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01) X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 25852 Cc: Leo Famulari , 25852@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) --l22j7hlw2s2g3ajh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 09:25:11AM +0000, Pjotr Prins wrote: >On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 08:56:41AM +0100, Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 =C4=8Cech wrote: >> And IMHO the best and also "Guix way" could be making guix-daemon aware = of >> possible newer versions in /gnu/store and execing them instead... > >Giving a loud warning should really be sufficient. The Guix way is to >have a system not surprise us by shifting the sand under our feet ;) Yes, but the surprise is made when your expectations are different =66rom what is naturally expected. My expectation is that when `guix pull' is run, it should update whole guix, not just part (guix - guix-daemon). Surprise is when it does not do it. Removing the surprise can be either by splitting the package to make obvious it is independent part or making `guix pull' able to update guix-daemon as well. Loud warning is really sufficient for user (or admin) but not for distribution package maintainer. Another option is that I will do the split by myself and take guix-daemon sources from GIT but I'm sure I'll make much worse job than you. Best regards, S_W --l22j7hlw2s2g3ajh Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEDOrssfr9jDQthC2PSiPjT6AzQ20FAli73b8ACgkQSiPjT6Az Q23Opg/8DqGfdy6nn5QcfvcgNQtkUt+tBgMdL/TRdTTnl92lRAXFwQlh5UoLy/5f 0kkAMeQh59LjQpgfhaaj+0aV7YltTBoyd0zCrfQF+cugR/p5ULGiAdTDsZCg3ZYq 8pqg5gZ8xYo/agePTUhQflYQSUc3XpjcdAcXO3gi/E+8qvfqZj8bVOxOaEo7+OFu 7i4fo/DsqtEVp07Ar9Sd5PRknB6lijtZ++ulnV6V8aazAzDeThq3t93pylLuPhA+ 2Hw7wn3cPiM7lzCVhiqFwVYzXrvojUqyibdwMwJKJc5lSTfMjVJZWa8N97wlFXyL W9A0xRzJPdOKrlpgIgbBLhHgpQKWK46halylyFFAv2UebrzCLaScph8xW13auRN0 sej2NBBCXUeMe2b8oFefgeWEc6iITwial9xAf8Cw8ZDW1NW7np6lp1PObmJ0MGx6 kxa1DrhB8cd5SCLeR6iRWV+iOVbtIwggP1uWVGKtfO+qu3hS7+9iTPIb7kLjyeHd 0zhwCskYNvrPtzoDE65gdRkpKZ7ub4FvTGpI+lMIrjgRLwrkO4+jPb+8hpPvAA8h 7L3YcdG+ryyJmfwdaNOW88dnwV64bs3Qz2iuFMi5XenQz1ltgXpGUQsjyrQqU8q1 FRfEcGtPBiCLfQK0IwpoDRkPmtRaxtBxrmsOUubOW/oObnWg+1w= =YKnX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --l22j7hlw2s2g3ajh-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Mar 06 09:53:36 2017 Received: (at 25852) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Mar 2017 14:53:36 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41966 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cku12-0005KT-8K for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 09:53:36 -0500 Received: from venus.bbbm.mdc-berlin.de ([141.80.25.30]:35436) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cku10-0005KJ-U6 for 25852@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 09:53:35 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by venus.bbbm.mdc-berlin.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60D7838116A; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 15:53:33 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mdc-berlin.de; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:mime-version :message-id:date:date:in-reply-to:subject:subject:from:from :user-agent:references:received:received:received; s=mdc; t= 1488812007; x=1490626408; bh=NldO/+q75ND2cMzxwIFrqbWUWu6mEAlxNiE g2NBj9BQ=; b=i2AfgUTNzU+OXqIzu89QGzGn1YQRmBzPdcM87z+8QKcVtlRKMpf GG13Z7hN/BfGqfEbNo+rtyLyOKqNItW9gqpI7JUj4xFBHOZkYrw2Q15QyuQlTPsm f60pPmrnFdEE/Ejz+wLCfTFAxwZZBAw0XGfdmbPXZkEjh1Nv90N3RRUs= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mdc-berlin.de Received: from venus.bbbm.mdc-berlin.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (venus.bbbm.mdc-berlin.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nxs9l3b8uUj5; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 15:53:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from HTCAONE.mdc-berlin.net (mab.citx.mdc-berlin.de [141.80.36.102]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by venus.bbbm.mdc-berlin.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 15:53:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (141.80.180.135) by HTCAONE.mdc-berlin.net (141.80.180.125) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.319.2; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 15:52:07 +0100 References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> <20170304202941.sgeprky4l2lda7xt@penguin> <20170304224359.GA18077@jasmine> <20170305075641.76f4mznuod2gztdi@penguin> <20170305092511.GA9142@mail.thebird.nl> <20170305094327.3m67twgmae6nyloq@penguin> User-agent: mu4e 0.9.18; emacs 25.1.1 From: Ricardo Wurmus To: =?utf-8?B?VG9tw6HFoSDEjGVjaA==?= Subject: Re: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix In-Reply-To: <20170305094327.3m67twgmae6nyloq@penguin> 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, 6 Mar 2017 15:52:07 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [141.80.180.135] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-11.0.0.4283-8.100.1062-22924.007 X-TM-AS-Result: No--0.262800-0.000000-31 X-TM-AS-MatchedID: 150567-703786-703731-139010-703788-701437-706249-702143-7 11521-700942-148004-148133-41000-42000-42003 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: Yes X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 25852 Cc: Pjotr Prins , 25852@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) Tomáš Čech writes: > My expectation is that when `guix pull' is run, it should update whole > guix, not just part (guix - guix-daemon). […] > Removing the surprise can be […] by […] making `guix pull' able to update > guix-daemon as well. That’s what is planned for “guix pull” anyway IIRC. I suspect this would be easier if we had a daemon written in Guile. -- Ricardo Wurmus From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Mar 06 16:12:36 2017 Received: (at 25852) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Mar 2017 21:12:36 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43261 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ckzvn-0003PN-RB for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 16:12:36 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:37141) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ckzvm-0003Oz-Pe for 25852@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 16:12:34 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ckzve-00018V-Bm for 25852@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 16:12:29 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:54215) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ckzve-00018R-8G; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 16:12:26 -0500 Received: from reverse-83.fdn.fr ([80.67.176.83]:57216 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ckzvd-0005iQ-Gw; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 16:12:26 -0500 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) To: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 16 =?utf-8?Q?Vent=C3=B4se?= an 225 de la =?utf-8?Q?R?= =?utf-8?Q?=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2017 22:12:21 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> (Leo Famulari's message of "Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:11:56 -0500") Message-ID: <877f429kju.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 25852 Cc: 25852@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) Leo Famulari skribis: > In my opinion, the recent bug #25775 (Can't install packages after guix > pull) [0] exposed a sort of meta-bug: there are a significant number of > users who were still using the guix-daemon from 0.10.0. > > It seems unlikely that they have been updating all of root's > packages except for the guix package. Rather, I bet they never updated > root's packages at all, for ~1 year. > > I think this is a serious documentation bug. I=E2=80=99m not sure documentation would help. Software like Firefox handles that by calling home to know its latest version, but I=E2=80=99m not sure we want to have that happen automatically. Thoughts on how we could address this? Following discussions at the R-B summit, I considered adding a =E2=80=98guix health=E2=80=99 (or similar) command that would report things like vulnerab= le software in the profile. Such a command could also suggest Guix updates. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Mar 06 16:34:38 2017 Received: (at 25852) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Mar 2017 21:34:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43280 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cl0H8-0003yE-GQ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 16:34:38 -0500 Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]:58533) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cl0H6-0003y4-H8 for 25852@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 16:34:36 -0500 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31AFD20B71; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 16:34:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 06 Mar 2017 16:34:36 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=9ePSw4WLVCPNKkP 6J5YabA1MctY=; b=UcvhX7SjqdAq46X7w0zpAxIrmfA5SeKjFdN909pFYSAQRli dopgx+1Cf0b3kM99Rt27UoagJWe24n0EiagQkdGCX+VwufwXREgJdujHOQeQnPZb L5+fkAvQu0jK+3w28EqZd2DFBf3/ENo/eAX32y1KUp4/zEkakP+Qhim9I1Sw= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= smtpout; bh=9ePSw4WLVCPNKkP6J5YabA1MctY=; b=bVN93jPkb6dqzoje0Y6T asjjG4F58AIpe/cGO9cTJb+tlXMC7jQmvqEop6WSI6/wApuWMS95b8QcQGvhpH2x w7q9rnzPdTPRPIYBbZhFscuPiIA+YJ1mdyWyBi3WLZn9jwZEZ1hdjFotHhj4vjNJ 5vsm/j61YSHoH+C9yJLdPKk= X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: NGwTBFN3/bNLwpId4U0stG37VejDqUqw0E6Ibhzn3XH3 1488836075 Received: from localhost (c-73-188-17-148.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [73.188.17.148]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id DEE817E033; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 16:34:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 16:34:34 -0500 From: Leo Famulari To: Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= Subject: Re: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix Message-ID: <20170306213434.GA25316@jasmine> References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> <877f429kju.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <877f429kju.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23) X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 25852 Cc: 25852@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 10:12:21PM +0100, Ludovic Courts wrote: > Leo Famulari skribis: > > > In my opinion, the recent bug #25775 (Can't install packages after guix > > pull) [0] exposed a sort of meta-bug: there are a significant number of > > users who were still using the guix-daemon from 0.10.0. > > > > It seems unlikely that they have been updating all of root's > > packages except for the guix package. Rather, I bet they never updated > > root's packages at all, for ~1 year. They could have been stuck with an old daemon if they copied the systemd or upstart service files we provide. That problem should be fixed by 613d0895b92c677e0639d5e77c55043e38e020c8 (build: Don't embed absolute paths in .service and .conf service files.). From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Mar 07 01:33:36 2017 Received: (at 25852) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Mar 2017 06:33:36 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43509 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cl8gi-0003ku-Cm for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 01:33:36 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:41872) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cl8gg-0003km-NQ for 25852@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 01:33:35 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44447AB46; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 06:33:33 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 07:33:30 +0100 From: =?utf-8?B?VG9tw6HFoSDEjGVjaA==?= To: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix Message-ID: <20170307063330.bhv2ugsvi3qeofu5@penguin> References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> <877f429kju.fsf@gnu.org> <20170306213434.GA25316@jasmine> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="7hqsk6ajg6oomf4b" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170306213434.GA25316@jasmine> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01) X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 25852 Cc: Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= , 25852@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) --7hqsk6ajg6oomf4b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 04:34:34PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: >On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 10:12:21PM +0100, Ludovic Court=E8s wrote: >> Leo Famulari skribis: >> >> > In my opinion, the recent bug #25775 (Can't install packages after guix >> > pull) [0] exposed a sort of meta-bug: there are a significant number of >> > users who were still using the guix-daemon from 0.10.0. >> > >> > It seems unlikely that they have been updating all of root's >> > packages except for the guix package. Rather, I bet they never updated >> > root's packages at all, for ~1 year. > >They could have been stuck with an old daemon if they copied the systemd >or upstart service files we provide. > >That problem should be fixed by 613d0895b92c677e0639d5e77c55043e38e020c8 >(build: Don't embed absolute paths in .service and .conf service >files.). That is right. But 1) there was no release with this "fix" 2) I (as distro package maintainer) didn't take this patch manually as it is fragile and hacky. Have you considered fresh guix installation? Best regards, S_W --7hqsk6ajg6oomf4b Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEDOrssfr9jDQthC2PSiPjT6AzQ20FAli+VCUACgkQSiPjT6Az Q20T0A/+KBjKKjFb4M1GEQlf4gVv8KJRWTdz5fYFF4UC+Rx3AlgC+d5zU6aW0K1g EquIQN7wWcP5Mq+6pXVrdgu1JnJS9OCTbG/hVsirs1OGcurzLl19EWkhkJj4NW2x X9jq9rDj3yiScGoBeVm+ln1rWz+64e3WAQRgEjU5RbtCylZEta8plQvkysaqXKEp vA6foaeZ/MHNcYgJokt64a4kGc5rbD9W7dABTf9V6mnSLm+RAYqO0eYHdEMGSETc PvBOUZ2567Hqyb1b4mf2TFeicLcoH9EBaUVHM1lPyQKZSrG+e71jWKKChdQotSC1 ebGhydHZcHXU9/Wzh0HqxssI0HtiZZW0Jb1TNenwa6GQoOPDu8Qr/1NCth1dxtFu zYdb5NaRgdSHZEUD3cxRNoOrQYMef3qxmYDDh2uLwVrAVZFyvPP5PcIV/lIl0lHm KZWxNH3yl6vIadysGfxnWg+Qfbw2fj2wjcgHuuKHuDusWtlxU8Fiel78VTJ9QJDY XPfyFo5bFxT7niCH5Sd4qdC7V+unC9C5Cn+Zd1Q7/+aiE9CpVcvNDNXwYGLlcYmq eD1gbkVsY3vlvhuqK9YDAfN38MBBJo0xRi9kpQJa8WXfCK4ypPH3kGajKXmBejrr 09jScaUN3V1/6AI6Fdlnfo3N4Lxgk57K1fxcuZ6pIMFmmv13U3g= =EKhW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --7hqsk6ajg6oomf4b-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Mar 07 01:58:01 2017 Received: (at 25852) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Mar 2017 06:58:01 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43525 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cl94L-0004Ik-L8 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 01:58:01 -0500 Received: from mail.thebird.nl ([95.154.246.10]:40003) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cl94J-0004IV-RK for 25852@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 01:58:00 -0500 Received: by mail.thebird.nl (Postfix, from userid 502) id E328B40050; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 07:54:16 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 06:54:16 +0000 From: Pjotr Prins To: Ricardo Wurmus Subject: Re: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix Message-ID: <20170307065416.GA24985@mail.thebird.nl> References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> <20170304202941.sgeprky4l2lda7xt@penguin> <20170304224359.GA18077@jasmine> <20170305075641.76f4mznuod2gztdi@penguin> <20170305092511.GA9142@mail.thebird.nl> <20170305094327.3m67twgmae6nyloq@penguin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01) X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 25852 Cc: =?utf-8?B?VG9tw6HFoSDEjGVjaA==?= , Pjotr Prins , 25852@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 03:52:07PM +0100, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > > Removing the surprise can be […] by […] making `guix pull' able to update > > guix-daemon as well. > > That’s what is planned for “guix pull” anyway IIRC. I suspect this > would be easier if we had a daemon written in Guile. This is intriguing. You mean that the daemon would be loading modules in different versions for different users. So, essentially, every user is running his/her own daemon. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Mar 07 02:32:39 2017 Received: (at 25852) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Mar 2017 07:32:40 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43538 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cl9br-00058h-N9 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 02:32:39 -0500 Received: from world.peace.net ([50.252.239.5]:59932) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cl9bp-00058T-NH for 25852@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 02:32:38 -0500 Received: from pool-72-93-28-171.bstnma.east.verizon.net ([72.93.28.171] helo=jojen) by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cl9bi-000727-VF; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 02:32:31 -0500 From: Mark H Weaver To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> <877f429kju.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 02:32:18 -0500 In-Reply-To: <877f429kju.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Mon, 06 Mar 2017 22:12:21 +0100") Message-ID: <87wpc1k0e5.fsf@netris.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 25852 Cc: 25852@debbugs.gnu.org, Leo Famulari X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > Leo Famulari skribis: > >> In my opinion, the recent bug #25775 (Can't install packages after guix >> pull) [0] exposed a sort of meta-bug: there are a significant number of >> users who were still using the guix-daemon from 0.10.0. >> >> It seems unlikely that they have been updating all of root's >> packages except for the guix package. Rather, I bet they never updated >> root's packages at all, for ~1 year. >> >> I think this is a serious documentation bug. > > I=E2=80=99m not sure documentation would help. > > Software like Firefox handles that by calling home to know its latest > version, but I=E2=80=99m not sure we want to have that happen automatical= ly. > > Thoughts on how we could address this? We could simply issue a warning if the version of guix currently in use is more than N hours old, on the assumption that after N hours it's likely to be stale. The default value of N might be in the range 48-96 (2-4 days). A quick perusal through the recent commit log on our master branch indicates that it's quite rare for 4 days to pass without a security update. What do you think? Mark From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Mar 07 05:36:11 2017 Received: (at 25852) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Mar 2017 10:36:11 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43626 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1clCTS-0002kC-Rz for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 05:36:11 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:49268) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1clCTR-0002k0-Gk for 25852@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 05:36:10 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1clCTJ-0005wt-AF for 25852@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 05:36:04 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:34611) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1clCTJ-0005wn-6j; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 05:36:01 -0500 Received: from [193.50.110.248] (port=49844 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1clCTI-0001RE-HL; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 05:36:00 -0500 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) To: Mark H Weaver Subject: Re: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> <877f429kju.fsf@gnu.org> <87wpc1k0e5.fsf@netris.org> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 17 =?utf-8?Q?Vent=C3=B4se?= an 225 de la =?utf-8?Q?R?= =?utf-8?Q?=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 11:35:58 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87wpc1k0e5.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Tue, 07 Mar 2017 02:32:18 -0500") Message-ID: <87efy9gyr5.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 25852 Cc: 25852@debbugs.gnu.org, Leo Famulari X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) Mark H Weaver skribis: > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > >> Leo Famulari skribis: >> >>> In my opinion, the recent bug #25775 (Can't install packages after guix >>> pull) [0] exposed a sort of meta-bug: there are a significant number of >>> users who were still using the guix-daemon from 0.10.0. >>> >>> It seems unlikely that they have been updating all of root's >>> packages except for the guix package. Rather, I bet they never updated >>> root's packages at all, for ~1 year. >>> >>> I think this is a serious documentation bug. >> >> I=E2=80=99m not sure documentation would help. >> >> Software like Firefox handles that by calling home to know its latest >> version, but I=E2=80=99m not sure we want to have that happen automatica= lly. >> >> Thoughts on how we could address this? > > We could simply issue a warning if the version of guix currently in use > is more than N hours old, on the assumption that after N hours it's > likely to be stale. The default value of N might be in the range 48-96 > (2-4 days). A quick perusal through the recent commit log on our master > branch indicates that it's quite rare for 4 days to pass without a > security update. > > What do you think? That sounds like an easy and reasonable approach. I wonder what would be the best place to emit this warning. Upon =E2=80=98= guix package -i=E2=80=99 maybe? Ludo=E2=80=99. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Mar 07 14:51:24 2017 Received: (at 25852) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Mar 2017 19:51:24 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45020 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1clL8m-0003sT-Gf for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 14:51:24 -0500 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:32848) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1clL8k-0003sE-8Q for 25852@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 14:51:22 -0500 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56C7920A81; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 14:51:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 07 Mar 2017 14:51:21 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h= cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=Ag7zXZUapIf6IV7B/SsDLoLt9bo=; b=ct7S4D YI+kaiQrCO+IKVzTO9kj+1835Dtp5xYlN8vOOzsBKmi6R07vr6GCsNagXjJaxusa OvlwoZ7S5wgzoGt1FOqnQUYeiFJSFoRPCUmTx+a+4cF3bCUCS+f4SCYjX1js35TT aJlzcoEUeiLjYP/xNwKvngNbXkTbrZqwfuZuI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=Ag7zXZUapIf6IV 7B/SsDLoLt9bo=; b=cLmSJnjWMh5U3g/y3A/1aXUYNiheEutpBKjrvARU02uVcy xtt5E98aLhKgTEzffgWr9Ls2TqfpuKPW+Kgc+DN3wOodSwTZLj5UzIwNFcO+UX1Z DMpFosn09GT15eaeilcN8gc8XY+7pfSphzaBP61D4F4Z65w7GUpMDmJp0aa+Y= X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: O87OCjvf/Efp9GWkzu4jP5WYUF7uAM2bAFQ2Mn24L8n7 1488916281 Received: from localhost (c-73-188-17-148.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [73.188.17.148]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 141E27E2C2; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 14:51:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 14:51:18 -0500 From: Leo Famulari To: =?utf-8?B?VG9tw6HFoSDEjGVjaA==?= Subject: Re: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix Message-ID: <20170307195118.GA30247@jasmine> References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> <877f429kju.fsf@gnu.org> <20170306213434.GA25316@jasmine> <20170307063330.bhv2ugsvi3qeofu5@penguin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="fUYQa+Pmc3FrFX/N" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170307063330.bhv2ugsvi3qeofu5@penguin> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23) X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 25852 Cc: Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= , 25852@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) --fUYQa+Pmc3FrFX/N Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 07:33:30AM +0100, Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 =C4=8Cech wrote: > On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 04:34:34PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 10:12:21PM +0100, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > > > Leo Famulari skribis: > > >=20 > > > > In my opinion, the recent bug #25775 (Can't install packages after = guix > > > > pull) [0] exposed a sort of meta-bug: there are a significant numbe= r of > > > > users who were still using the guix-daemon from 0.10.0. > > > > > > > > It seems unlikely that they have been updating all of root's > > > > packages except for the guix package. Rather, I bet they never upda= ted > > > > root's packages at all, for ~1 year. > >=20 > > They could have been stuck with an old daemon if they copied the systemd > > or upstart service files we provide. > >=20 > > That problem should be fixed by 613d0895b92c677e0639d5e77c55043e38e020c8 > > (build: Don't embed absolute paths in .service and .conf service > > files.). >=20 > That is right. But >=20 > 1) there was no release with this "fix" > 2) I (as distro package maintainer) didn't take this patch manually as > it is fragile and hacky. Have you considered fresh guix installation? This will take effect for the next release of Guix; it addresses a problem that arises when somebody installs the binary release of Guix. I'm not addressing downstream packages of Guix with this commit. --fUYQa+Pmc3FrFX/N Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEsFFZSPHn08G5gDigJkb6MLrKfwgFAli/DzIACgkQJkb6MLrK fwjDzQ/+NS703/99Z373izhdd0dculp7ntzcRf98SiOCYnyFmPqZRkXQ7jPcyAPj JSgpouXbZdLSsYzLn3BaJVHYifq7jwf6b7yvR/r9Y2W1PsKnHmkvAxbxhjM3Bh5r M5F4ZKWuame1k3faEp5xO1IDOpyMxPRIhXgXUc0RtWezVBQp4Zx3xfe+oyE13f75 xQVBgkFy+3TAz/COGAHuXjdfB/uwpEukCYc4ydTr+Fs/Xl5j9ev81OH8piVXE2j3 43ixqKoQPUe3Pcf6QzJ71iRQxAUXx0ag/nobTlksR8jyct6wE0IoKpOWnptKIJJw N7Wz216VZ3PvFMbASugEJ3LHjNmnQLGn0wFQC57sAq47mSM8r26jTOrrS85YFxJE oeveGqPVUbdQTFd+uxVRczcxtDmwVl6DqpKxca9J/PqkNVACSAofxCRZV/T7r7cu yK3uk5DuEaXpLVGAu0I+RsYsISXjIpdcAvAlZ1EqnzUjjIvNk8Zz5H/gxWPmxOnO 4xZ7fuVF7+pWuM03rwaUGrBkbSXQ1xItEc0kSOWPTtxtopeAtp4ZTgKcYxqf7qMA NmB0QZ9izge2kCcbfnFv/7m/3jf5aFLD/+X0QD0FdKmnn2goJfBKsDLyO+dlQJ6x 41Z+t1kMlA1lSr0lPDRTR7qLkFrfApLi5p19xADyaAxXGnd/uUc= =KPBY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --fUYQa+Pmc3FrFX/N-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Mar 07 15:58:57 2017 Received: (at 25852) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Mar 2017 20:58:57 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45077 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1clMC9-0005Ve-Ej for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 15:58:57 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:45260) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1clMC6-0005VU-2t for 25852@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 15:58:55 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7904AD3F; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 20:58:50 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 21:58:48 +0100 From: =?utf-8?B?VG9tw6HFoSDEjGVjaA==?= To: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix Message-ID: <20170307205848.42w2pusavz37dgwu@penguin> References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> <877f429kju.fsf@gnu.org> <20170306213434.GA25316@jasmine> <20170307063330.bhv2ugsvi3qeofu5@penguin> <20170307195118.GA30247@jasmine> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="oy5k7wlsbpwgj33u" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170307195118.GA30247@jasmine> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01) X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 25852 Cc: Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= , 25852@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) --oy5k7wlsbpwgj33u Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:51:18PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: >On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 07:33:30AM +0100, Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 =C4=8Cech wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 04:34:34PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: >> > On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 10:12:21PM +0100, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >> > > Leo Famulari skribis: >> > > >> > > > In my opinion, the recent bug #25775 (Can't install packages after= guix >> > > > pull) [0] exposed a sort of meta-bug: there are a significant numb= er of >> > > > users who were still using the guix-daemon from 0.10.0. >> > > > >> > > > It seems unlikely that they have been updating all of root's >> > > > packages except for the guix package. Rather, I bet they never upd= ated >> > > > root's packages at all, for ~1 year. >> > >> > They could have been stuck with an old daemon if they copied the syste= md >> > or upstart service files we provide. >> > >> > That problem should be fixed by 613d0895b92c677e0639d5e77c55043e38e020= c8 >> > (build: Don't embed absolute paths in .service and .conf service >> > files.). >> >> That is right. But >> >> 1) there was no release with this "fix" >> 2) I (as distro package maintainer) didn't take this patch manually as >> it is fragile and hacky. Have you considered fresh guix installation? > >This will take effect for the next release of Guix; it addresses a >problem that arises when somebody installs the binary release of Guix. > >I'm not addressing downstream packages of Guix with this commit. I'm sorry, I may not understand correctly your answer. Are you saying that situation when user freshly installs Guix on system with systemd (and thus has empty /gnu/store)? S_W --oy5k7wlsbpwgj33u Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEDOrssfr9jDQthC2PSiPjT6AzQ20FAli/HwMACgkQSiPjT6Az Q21lzhAAgAJqd7dAoDv3yjR9CrCI5/wqupTcp1xWvr0XkMJKStvMgHRCSb80//63 d5GgEUpGOR6Qr/aanWLsK8yu4D6qepCPt3FrqqjHoeJmcNghXIxxzw84sPXrBsq1 ZJ4s5C4+MAC7X4UFMczlTCQrCL3YxqZmuKyB6+FDH1S9VO7WjZmGjJdU8J1YvY8a YRxE+599lq2Tg6AjcerqYvn9PHstcPcbBpdC4EHueryGBQ44CN6z1iENFdkutI2a ryL16r2O9jYySJPpGg+3DcAO1+pVWvXH17qEuVmBucVd1N7RvG3dxC2p/eJl5XpT MVYlcwI8CAOhjAsJm0LimzN0DUWVuz+A0JIJ9JnJGuo9TntJ6btv20iUwbT1ggui s1DtYxVHzL3EF8CMrahiq5jnIM35CtPyq2GEVXTEub80n4YHTSevqPBMh1adKKLA qUa/XLvyTbDZiqI8ycHg7kGZsvMfpf3lI/7UqrP/0qIKWzziCReJcwKFNrvinEH4 a+dnAOsPVdlCx2ryw8t52sDE/4S8hxk/+X3adZgkEaTMCz8wtN4HaQJSZxNUXaoP Ax7EyaT+fhDkIdpOngRKhshKjEH9ZP5Bg5V3Er8LE1jEnIeU03hgzT2FaZpyHdz4 CPbJE37/Sg2YwdX7bLxwv4Eq1/Slil5t7bEZC96LW8thMLJrYy4= =RI/5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --oy5k7wlsbpwgj33u-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Mar 07 17:22:22 2017 Received: (at 25852) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Mar 2017 22:22:22 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45138 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1clNUs-0007Vf-Az for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 17:22:22 -0500 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:55306) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1clNUr-0007VX-4S for 25852@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 17:22:21 -0500 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74A8A20814; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 17:22:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 07 Mar 2017 17:22:17 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h= cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=+djMauAfKrsY/HmOFepdkpCXhe4=; b=yWQBJb DF07BMqkGi57t6GOjSNzEfaB5A4G5qt7bCL/cH2GWhivJivXsp4KaxnZxMSfroXQ q65zNGlLWk6lZnbO00TXbt5diBiHWhd7kz6ctTjpPIJRu+dI2AezMH4rbS/vr3/V +sqEB7xO55VXuRUvFBgd1OKeDiSlfup1JfmQI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=+djMauAfKrsY/H mOFepdkpCXhe4=; b=K1S2mIuNBbFAribY3JTxdNYR0zQM11IDSsEz8VuQAZ/Le4 X7elj2SG/MHvyseJ16v9K9RN7eJWs+SRuDZG7iNuew6DnDceu541GjyFxM1LLftA 93K5d1Cw8atqEfXf9x8s51VwCh42Iu5vI3GChVvt5q9fHbCDAzyyPD9ykCMFw= X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: tiBaoj3hhkbojBsaDYhtYgYb3OTrMoT60NO9xhYeF6f5 1488925337 Received: from localhost (c-73-188-17-148.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [73.188.17.148]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2B3E324066; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 17:22:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 17:22:15 -0500 From: Leo Famulari To: =?utf-8?B?VG9tw6HFoSDEjGVjaA==?= Subject: Re: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix Message-ID: <20170307222215.GA4046@jasmine> References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> <877f429kju.fsf@gnu.org> <20170306213434.GA25316@jasmine> <20170307063330.bhv2ugsvi3qeofu5@penguin> <20170307195118.GA30247@jasmine> <20170307205848.42w2pusavz37dgwu@penguin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="oyUTqETQ0mS9luUI" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170307205848.42w2pusavz37dgwu@penguin> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23) X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 25852 Cc: Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= , 25852@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) --oyUTqETQ0mS9luUI Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 09:58:48PM +0100, Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 =C4=8Cech wrote: > On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:51:18PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: > > This will take effect for the next release of Guix; it addresses a > > problem that arises when somebody installs the binary release of Guix. > >=20 > > I'm not addressing downstream packages of Guix with this commit. >=20 > I'm sorry, I may not understand correctly your answer. >=20 > Are you saying that situation when user freshly installs Guix on > system with systemd (and thus has empty /gnu/store)? The "fix" I pushed will help anyone who does a new installation of Guix on a Systemd or Upstart-based system, after the next release of Guix. Specifically, it is meant to address the issue described here: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2017-01/msg01199.html This change won't help anyone who already is affected by that issue. I view it as one small step towards making it probable that users will keep their their Guix installations up to date. --oyUTqETQ0mS9luUI Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEsFFZSPHn08G5gDigJkb6MLrKfwgFAli/MowACgkQJkb6MLrK fwgHrxAAntRHEoOKIMVp0Iq0gI9psz4y+/rEVOFINNJFx6dvS3zzEdFB6EJXFral fHWS51qYJ1RwN1GIZdhHccjQ0rxWlpCQU8r3kHPG9Qh2vH5v1a+P0Cnd3AIQgg3v Vd+OVXg6HCxOBsXqRRSnX1d03Ei7Axb3bTzQA8UuTVZ9FedZy2Rjs8kKbkMGJVsa puBSnfiy7s1s2PSkyADDAW6gHGosjykAYq1yh9cEXYCYEN1ESJfjhssBDtU45wYS J1Y/INBbogwa6uoaJD9GGPRz1Ewa8PWp3i1upJoajgho1oP6I3YYvpxung7/2EV/ WwghuLcyjlYOFEsiPPSP9KIhDpbd8/WfkvyCMO3mkZJITbdIFJSuKJiRAcXopGXf Q9wnb84wgqjk3qh0QkQuE95Ufqf2OHpt8kd/FhefciAN/VJPE0cF7XxruOx6lhfY xy7CZITffOSspEXHA4aW8pEhIVDtEAoULq+bB//xS00znGK8+gSIDcNt3oUn1GSP oOax+JmUeers2S7GwZI6bt5eldFNQsDwAysCE2RkgtCAgQZoHu4A0VkR64C5Jt/f m17eXRWPbr6MAZ2CwPefsLGs4KsDERTKezCNC/oEv8FI6nM4BO28Xe8/cnAbTvP8 dA8/ER3+i23spBpiWopju53FIvgOKaaVEIS9iMeycm4G5C2cxHQ= =sIJf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --oyUTqETQ0mS9luUI-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Mar 08 01:25:48 2017 Received: (at 25852) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Mar 2017 06:25:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45282 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1clV2i-0004Bu-2V for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 01:25:48 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:37592) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1clV2g-0004Bm-F3 for 25852@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 01:25:46 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay1.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95548AAB4; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 06:25:44 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 07:25:42 +0100 From: =?utf-8?B?VG9tw6HFoSDEjGVjaA==?= To: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix Message-ID: <20170308062542.hfypmvgp2o6il2xf@penguin> References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> <877f429kju.fsf@gnu.org> <20170306213434.GA25316@jasmine> <20170307063330.bhv2ugsvi3qeofu5@penguin> <20170307195118.GA30247@jasmine> <20170307205848.42w2pusavz37dgwu@penguin> <20170307222215.GA4046@jasmine> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ehgm4pl7sqcxjclw" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170307222215.GA4046@jasmine> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01) X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 25852 Cc: Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= , 25852@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) --ehgm4pl7sqcxjclw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 05:22:15PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: >On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 09:58:48PM +0100, Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 =C4=8Cech wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:51:18PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: >> > This will take effect for the next release of Guix; it addresses a >> > problem that arises when somebody installs the binary release of Guix. >> > >> > I'm not addressing downstream packages of Guix with this commit. >> >> I'm sorry, I may not understand correctly your answer. >> >> Are you saying that situation when user freshly installs Guix on >> system with systemd (and thus has empty /gnu/store)? > >The "fix" I pushed will help anyone who does a new installation of Guix >on a Systemd or Upstart-based system, after the next release of Guix. Unless I'm missing some other commit, this won't work. When I perform these steps: 1] ./configure && make && sudo make install (or package installation) 2] mkdir /gnu/store 3] attempt to start daemon will fail as there is no guix-daemon in @localstatedir@/guix/profiles/per-user/root/guix-profile/bin/guix-daemon because there is no guix-daemon in /gnu/store Without daemon running you won't be able to make one in that location. Dead end. Best regards, S_W --ehgm4pl7sqcxjclw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEDOrssfr9jDQthC2PSiPjT6AzQ20FAli/o+AACgkQSiPjT6Az Q23/bQ//VLVACUo52+ow5WUUJ7und5e/nd/1cge4T4wQtpbykn8ooVEVfxn3lT+6 awg+TUQBVAlnQR0smPgZjeGksfwA2YY8kEyRRhgYrTYIX/8zXWJm8KKClBC1CsCj nUTZo2s9YOsg43797mPQM+8l3P3GaoI3ra2AgI4i0Dm8wdSyk345YyCEJNWvqKMl ACW2RuFpdutU6YomWz91L4JO7ABBWJgIJGb9TLNvYcY/noiJhj3NeHPyJuXHY/5Z 6MCvfepqiqhFlLMnS3TvrSkOogAnwfOQ9tu737BUueRLVRLTRn+/KPgGAuhGOP8k hURR41TN/PnTml4NVQX9HgsK2pPXDTLrvX9myEoT+fWBPHgpsjKPAWkm5SxuEsoY LIZWXHPDe6VL8oxG2+kSqmnbfPU1H+YhnAyOvBpaPOQbktByUZRSyWp8DxGT3vLb BOc2dC9UXr66/5PBTEtcmQVCezYDYXA3fDJnMK1kygrbXme37e/9szdW/Y9Jb9Su 4eaW7TZKuQuCDs/fWzhOnBlcNc/QAWtqFDUZTGcYFJxRv3GJrgc0y2xnnYbShKBJ h8X0Fz1Ap+v+p0n6Vs0Fne3yb26TAPnuFLfe5fUNG9CLtREzorm4NAiNMjcZJV+E MH3kaVVLPyLRCfudEBykpIm7J3PeoB2jQEjefEfti9VQsorB0+A= =DkGv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ehgm4pl7sqcxjclw-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Mar 08 03:45:52 2017 Received: (at 25852) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Mar 2017 08:45:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45336 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1clXEG-0007XC-M3 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 03:45:52 -0500 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:38241) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1clXEF-0007X4-5q for 25852@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 03:45:51 -0500 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 401E620D79; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 03:45:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 08 Mar 2017 03:45:49 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h= cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=nznu+/aZzZ507GNb/fufLYkdbG0=; b=mfpuzO gly2oeb48XqtZSzthOHLdnKRc76leaQvV2NYo0hnTjF/jQ8OvpmklyFKMPQ2GKEM ldIF2uotgutojQenor/VwRrKUwrDL85HX9FYZNMHUxZjna1Zbsw1sCleCRgn7nZd 9IQlCSPcgJdZPzLaIM6zirfMLGA7vZuucssc4= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=nznu+/aZzZ507G Nb/fufLYkdbG0=; b=OR/YyJkW98XYPHiHO3KhgC99jQ4ZQdzZOYxrq3M9h4N3/N 1FulivpVdMMnjd/KPaD7Gn8yCKyYnaksi1KksE/KhPhPxlC1d6/wFJgsvN/n7jTi wTxETK0B1InQwElFbFHWAhqwz26X+g8IEUjdIFMxcNHG4BCfkHzXs8GXl7BAs= X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: IlNQtbA0Kp/TKFp2CfMUqBROfK1mFVCO5lvITLBuLO7m 1488962749 Received: from localhost (c-73-188-17-148.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [73.188.17.148]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id F36FA7E429; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 03:45:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 03:45:47 -0500 From: Leo Famulari To: =?utf-8?B?VG9tw6HFoSDEjGVjaA==?= Subject: Re: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix Message-ID: <20170308084547.GA7436@jasmine> References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> <877f429kju.fsf@gnu.org> <20170306213434.GA25316@jasmine> <20170307063330.bhv2ugsvi3qeofu5@penguin> <20170307195118.GA30247@jasmine> <20170307205848.42w2pusavz37dgwu@penguin> <20170307222215.GA4046@jasmine> <20170308062542.hfypmvgp2o6il2xf@penguin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="9amGYk9869ThD9tj" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170308062542.hfypmvgp2o6il2xf@penguin> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23) X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 25852 Cc: 25852@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) --9amGYk9869ThD9tj Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 07:25:42AM +0100, Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 =C4=8Cech wrote: > Unless I'm missing some other commit, this won't work. >=20 > When I perform these steps: > 1] ./configure && make && sudo make install (or package installation) > 2] mkdir /gnu/store > 3] attempt to start daemon will fail as there is no guix-daemon in > @localstatedir@/guix/profiles/per-user/root/guix-profile/bin/guix-daemon > because there is no guix-daemon in /gnu/store I haven't used `make install`. Does this change break it? On my system, the old @bindir@ method didn't yield a usable guix-daemon.service either, because there is no '/usr/local/bin/guix-daemon'. The binary tarball that we distribute includes the guix-daemon in its store, and the '/var/guix/...' path works too. There were lots of people trying to follow the Binary Installation instructions in the manual [0] and getting stuck on step 5. They weren't able to symlink the systemd service file, and they had to edit the file too. With this change, the instructions in the manual should work whether or not the user copies or symlinks the service file. [0] https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/manual/html_node/Binary-Installation.html --9amGYk9869ThD9tj Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEsFFZSPHn08G5gDigJkb6MLrKfwgFAli/xLMACgkQJkb6MLrK fwiABRAAlQMDEzCYuIwsoAyumfQL3QJoXlGjeqxoazNyZSzSZNFDl6D63zCSXes4 mk42JCWy2jqMryKaiZX2oz1UX92z/kmbtI7n7g6dhiWeLwFDwjGLis837ztlQkdN OZ5PntMIYPSJUI1odjyw/8MyGVGeVjAyGZOsTTJiNxdvGy8pWcBphuozBlJlp3Vt El74qEBSvjkx8lC5cduWk9HZ5ENAGaW8vf56zW0wpjBWcBzXguDp1tT8aowNkAqQ JFN/PuS4I3bsHSG1/UT+u3SjvFJUFudYeZ4tmLjPyCAtPKlUvYN5+vNnR73TmNZR XcIRwa6oXrt8PgxbxZ+qnmZYJtKMdNRQJmMehEqZ+8BkaH35+Py8sc0E8vBsewgi 6OIbIR2hGFDxi5LR5oWtvXXYYwUJcei+spQLC7dKVUVpwYgFvQDWmUCkb8RXuCY3 CRBhtpg/mcNbAfRkMWpeN6j4Bwn2xuOVZiyxruUr5dWJviZvOP2pY+OPwDc6nPmz VE8JbeJ3LS2pkOmD/bK0SMhy7AassN+ON8Rdf0bgpWCHiH8vAB9OEk+MyzrCGm60 wu4yLpBHcfMLhjvECaQ5gz9erC/xOklDYma7m/4mVmwbae2B3/A4UilruogMtM/7 ooIPh1K9pjJSQdsM05pkA6FCAUtEMBAEjZXBGc+pCcfMc061DW0= =2eA1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --9amGYk9869ThD9tj-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Mar 08 04:24:24 2017 Received: (at 25852) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Mar 2017 09:24:24 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45349 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1clXpY-0008RD-5w for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 04:24:24 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:57596) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1clXpW-0008R4-Cd for 25852@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 04:24:22 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay1.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C952ADC9; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 09:24:21 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 10:24:19 +0100 From: =?utf-8?B?VG9tw6HFoSDEjGVjaA==?= To: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix Message-ID: <20170308092419.6p7xt2psxruqd656@penguin> References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> <877f429kju.fsf@gnu.org> <20170306213434.GA25316@jasmine> <20170307063330.bhv2ugsvi3qeofu5@penguin> <20170307195118.GA30247@jasmine> <20170307205848.42w2pusavz37dgwu@penguin> <20170307222215.GA4046@jasmine> <20170308062542.hfypmvgp2o6il2xf@penguin> <20170308084547.GA7436@jasmine> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="zoajmsfhyntsbjhd" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170308084547.GA7436@jasmine> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01) X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 25852 Cc: 25852@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) --zoajmsfhyntsbjhd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 03:45:47AM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: >On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 07:25:42AM +0100, Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 =C4=8Cech wrote: >> Unless I'm missing some other commit, this won't work. >> >> When I perform these steps: >> 1] ./configure && make && sudo make install (or package installation) >> 2] mkdir /gnu/store >> 3] attempt to start daemon will fail as there is no guix-daemon in >> @localstatedir@/guix/profiles/per-user/root/guix-profile/bin/guix-daem= on >> because there is no guix-daemon in /gnu/store > >I haven't used `make install`. Does this change break it? On my system, >the old @bindir@ method didn't yield a usable guix-daemon.service >either, because there is no '/usr/local/bin/guix-daemon'. > >The binary tarball that we distribute includes the guix-daemon in its >store, and the '/var/guix/...' path works too. > >There were lots of people trying to follow the Binary Installation >instructions in the manual [0] and getting stuck on step 5. They weren't >able to symlink the systemd service file, and they had to edit the file >too. > >With this change, the instructions in the manual should work whether or >not the user copies or symlinks the service file. > >[0] >https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/manual/html_node/Binary-Installation.html Thank you for your explanation and your patience. I finally understand now what you mean with binary installation and understand how it doesn't break it. I'll try to fix source installation somehow. Best regards, Tomas --zoajmsfhyntsbjhd Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEDOrssfr9jDQthC2PSiPjT6AzQ20FAli/zcMACgkQSiPjT6Az Q23x+Q/+KWqvK5q6EGT+HehTWYNCxYhe8TL0So1LKfZKH84oTQhCh9mMp/pf6MOr B5+NWQxHpWTQToA77o1YRuSy4aRsyGFSzgNsADIeN5uN2qsjWGs23kFIhuLU/nQD zr6iYUsLnOI8ODweL0VLUWrkGVXvD5eMNFL3+j9isxjm57UvjLoTEIlGcPx1XiAx yjyi7bCC8WcQGYGJArSz1992qOJPZqVLwRZowd7sS46WLZzEvQcrvB5gt8bjbFnN vt6EjFOMse2AUuzuSYShbgtieRiCbc0WFWdFOxhwYGMKbwpUvuvDIbXxhqadyxDu V6+tilqL7743uW4jPxpkpkxjB9AUIlP/oABh2AO+PpsUHgHH9GBzVbPGs/epQm8P C19Irg2eG9w17JUtlnSTp+gshOAWcoSqeUSd2XG73E3kRlzWmBlZlBBOyUbsv8Rz iJNDW4m+doXncYQaoTEuEodMYMpzkG8Yj4Z59XXVqXe69wdE83ITQl57Ub4A3eW7 p2dAmba7a+ulRRGd5Or9eMUIj/dahDHzLwb0Jqe/ltoge0ehBPmnf1B9EpZLnAAv Y8d7A4TxqNYyVxunQDziEsr+yHQsHDA95P3cnEwfqshYbTcyKKxKlZ7BrB5GMtoF C1rmWdK9nB06HYvr9k+qFaOhlCkkpCfFJXwVKv/h0NJiP8lbdsA= =z11R -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --zoajmsfhyntsbjhd-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Mar 08 13:15:41 2017 Received: (at 25852) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Mar 2017 18:15:41 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46620 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1clg7h-0001wq-CH for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 13:15:41 -0500 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:45416) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1clg7f-0001wi-82 for 25852@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 13:15:39 -0500 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF811209B5; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 13:15:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 08 Mar 2017 13:15:38 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h= cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=kq4FvK7Jt1OCjzYEOEPlbgRe/Xk=; b=rZKVye emqkiIeATxJ4RnBf+qMrrBISFun2TRXn3iXE04C1HHloHyuUvgpJ2mTtPpOGiuVY 5zpD6WlRTBgBLdUTGrSYr7uxMEJQc1LHKjyD7+IA+ISUKrgrxJI8XSzJKLV73tGb keoRISL7qjDJzPnQb3aHPCUAbZGDp1HB5I/wk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=kq4FvK7Jt1OCjz YEOEPlbgRe/Xk=; b=QxmcwxufqKNbe4IsJgCJecVyhtglradDRVnmQwh71sSXLN Ivttpu+G4gymzLOeIiWVWy1zo0kZakAocJA/6GTh1lWyDKJ0r9lXaT5OSHOJbLUK ffdnpRQAmImqr3Ub4SDW+wOHmNBKrzoSkhQS69foMo2AzUNsmlqdQa6uVU2co= X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: ASbRC1f1DTb7A+Ln5eKI7rugNf+3Y2p7swvjvHgfxZ60 1488996938 Received: from localhost (c-73-188-17-148.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [73.188.17.148]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id AFF4D240AE; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 13:15:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 13:15:37 -0500 From: Leo Famulari To: =?utf-8?B?VG9tw6HFoSDEjGVjaA==?= Subject: Re: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix Message-ID: <20170308181537.GA2895@jasmine> References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> <877f429kju.fsf@gnu.org> <20170306213434.GA25316@jasmine> <20170307063330.bhv2ugsvi3qeofu5@penguin> <20170307195118.GA30247@jasmine> <20170307205848.42w2pusavz37dgwu@penguin> <20170307222215.GA4046@jasmine> <20170308062542.hfypmvgp2o6il2xf@penguin> <20170308084547.GA7436@jasmine> <20170308092419.6p7xt2psxruqd656@penguin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="XsQoSWH+UP9D9v3l" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170308092419.6p7xt2psxruqd656@penguin> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23) X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 25852 Cc: 25852@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) --XsQoSWH+UP9D9v3l Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 10:24:19AM +0100, Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 =C4=8Cech wrote: > Thank you for your explanation and your patience. I finally understand > now what you mean with binary installation and understand how it > doesn't break it. Thank you for continuing to ask for clarification. It's important that we review each others' work :) > I'll try to fix source installation somehow. Please let me know if I can help test it. --XsQoSWH+UP9D9v3l Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEsFFZSPHn08G5gDigJkb6MLrKfwgFAljASkkACgkQJkb6MLrK fwjQ9hAAqhf9Tta7u0K43fyOh0nPlOE14oD1z3PLsrHJg01wqgHx1rkdbHjV7PRJ Y6ibZI7ALDOXwzl/OTDoB8Ukq9Edw8KaV+sEBMgxu6fmyv+genbnSTjbBjshq3Gj Mq0V3TqTIIVToLcBGIn0p5OQAj45FsS+ANI1sgXXGa2pRzY+ZWltKOYc7uY3h00X XnpEmge9vGXgOF5WMAXj/ZOhw7w3rGeUICDSSTainXHrZcFjuIkJdR7+9CUiqgzC CM07hkNhyqFMU5Qg72XxVAVKGc+SjkgE7aV39UPYwbKYdQ6A9LiIzdHeREZCBe8b 8Wy0scsxlVjtgN8VYPVjsxhsBxDe2Yj5qNTpKTA8pdPhGWZ/zv6PQvQQ5KI+ddzO sZ8ZJs/ob9LOCc9fb3YfL8EW1MXjvXV2xqmpNlEpR8+APHm+NWAvsdVWSw+JEzXb EVLZ+TmgInEwwwOKDvAVjmlPFF4Tru7XkGAmmLVG+CfShNAAX1aFvJenewVsMrRu 8aV8t0s40tE543jgZA0xHYHZ6ebc8CosvvR1Vrw8VXhuZ+9As7ButMRAMFoEAjqh j0Q1XI/cViyITqaweFZMla2DDc7L6NLVjQR9Rb+nrCGYAazskuf2ugwgS4yDNzel 1lQZasOIGVX7CqUhlBEjfDWhZyOl8Xsbcvbq01URGh834fMo6eo= =TFCX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --XsQoSWH+UP9D9v3l-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Mar 09 02:39:04 2017 Received: (at 25852) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Mar 2017 07:39:04 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47091 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1clsfA-0002nr-Eq for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 02:39:04 -0500 Received: from flashner.co.il ([178.62.234.194]:43782) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1clsf8-0002nM-0a for 25852@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 02:39:02 -0500 Received: from localhost (85.64.232.168.dynamic.barak-online.net [85.64.232.168]) by flashner.co.il (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A0A7A401FA; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 07:38:55 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 09:38:53 +0200 From: Efraim Flashner To: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix Message-ID: <20170309073853.GD27857@macbook42.flashner.co.il> References: <877f429kju.fsf@gnu.org> <20170306213434.GA25316@jasmine> <20170307063330.bhv2ugsvi3qeofu5@penguin> <20170307195118.GA30247@jasmine> <20170307205848.42w2pusavz37dgwu@penguin> <20170307222215.GA4046@jasmine> <20170308062542.hfypmvgp2o6il2xf@penguin> <20170308084547.GA7436@jasmine> <20170308092419.6p7xt2psxruqd656@penguin> <20170308181537.GA2895@jasmine> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="/unnNtmY43mpUSKx" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170308181537.GA2895@jasmine> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23) X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 25852 Cc: =?utf-8?B?VG9tw6HFoSDEjGVjaA==?= , 25852@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) --/unnNtmY43mpUSKx Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 01:15:37PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: > On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 10:24:19AM +0100, Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 =C4=8Cech wrote: > > Thank you for your explanation and your patience. I finally understand > > now what you mean with binary installation and understand how it > > doesn't break it. >=20 > Thank you for continuing to ask for clarification. It's important that > we review each others' work :) >=20 > > I'll try to fix source installation somehow. >=20 > Please let me know if I can help test it. The recommendation I got for aarch64 was to run 'sudo ./pre-inst-env guix-daemon ...' I think if we do have people starting from the source and installing that way then 'sudo ./pre-inst-env guix-daemon...' followed by 'sudo ./pre-inst-env guix package -i guix' would have them in the same spot with guix-daemon being in /var/guix/..., allowing them to stop the pre-inst-env daemon and starting it with the systemd/upstart service. --=20 Efraim Flashner =D7=90=D7=A4=D7=A8=D7=99=D7=9D = =D7=A4=D7=9C=D7=A9=D7=A0=D7=A8 GPG key =3D A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted --/unnNtmY43mpUSKx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEkVdB/rIvpOM7bo+N9MHTkX6s7pMFAljBBoIACgkQ9MHTkX6s 7pPyVg//bUzWsJNg6dBjhKRm8e+Ynzcxj0fZVxRPWrM4hQ+j891xr728nPOmxQN7 kYuO7msNszAKrTqdQJ4kcLPvvQM8JNdeOSP8YLKflMAwgNQMC/pNtvhgs3ZpaoHH BYZEg53a+MxihL27WRcjvYEHok77fBSVdhmEuhkYppHsw4unPm3aPriBBGScY3Fw UFouCt0moIfPa8IIzn0RiuyeNETN7MetLT97S2R0i7h1fCPSsWHafPOP51B97bWJ gNbM1fLxgJBYtAQa+cubbgsnfNT8lbU+6nwTbo//maLa92AjS/bLp9feUOZZrVpu 8AKxUgEkBGd54WVpc/FIMwyRb6k5vzZ8b+j9n6/nb1YLW28ioFN5LQbG03q0k1iN zdUlzPuntLssOa4/OXHwWsFBntsHePZpAQoWTf8ZhGhrIhbkuhMxAgN92nCIFlt5 l9IygZbWrw9fknhf7QYihhZUSJ8iltg5rnVyO2taV5gB2C2J46QtFNrl89bTGsE1 xBOQVQKYolbSvAdXPyOamdo/AI5eWhQhFLygBSHkYpQS8szfTxbfq2xLSJd8l9Hm PqaCsAb9711DwSPnRYA/Av2bkMhrMasrFx8Hx5Wy3hHDvRak7Tio8+zFgzEAonOb ybhSmwVMsA4jBT84bFGm78jck4JdBio2MOmvp4MJvVMQg651unw= =dymU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --/unnNtmY43mpUSKx-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Mar 09 05:58:24 2017 Received: (at 25852) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Mar 2017 10:58:24 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47184 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1clvm4-0000qR-Jw for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 05:58:24 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:58548) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1clvm3-0000qE-Ax for 25852@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 05:58:23 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1clvlv-00074k-0f for 25852@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 05:58:18 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:44950) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1clvlu-00074f-U1; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 05:58:14 -0500 Received: from [193.50.110.248] (port=36606 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1clvlu-0003l3-6K; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 05:58:14 -0500 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) To: =?utf-8?B?VG9tw6HFoSDEjGVjaA==?= Subject: Re: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> <877f429kju.fsf@gnu.org> <20170306213434.GA25316@jasmine> <20170307063330.bhv2ugsvi3qeofu5@penguin> <20170307195118.GA30247@jasmine> <20170307205848.42w2pusavz37dgwu@penguin> <20170307222215.GA4046@jasmine> <20170308062542.hfypmvgp2o6il2xf@penguin> Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 11:58:12 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20170308062542.hfypmvgp2o6il2xf@penguin> (=?utf-8?B?IlRvbcOh?= =?utf-8?B?xaEgxIxlY2giJ3M=?= message of "Wed, 8 Mar 2017 07:25:42 +0100") Message-ID: <87innid8e3.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 25852 Cc: 25852@debbugs.gnu.org, Leo Famulari X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 =C4=8Cech skribis: > On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 05:22:15PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: >>On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 09:58:48PM +0100, Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 =C4=8Cech wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:51:18PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: >>> > This will take effect for the next release of Guix; it addresses a >>> > problem that arises when somebody installs the binary release of Guix. >>> > >>> > I'm not addressing downstream packages of Guix with this commit. >>> >>> I'm sorry, I may not understand correctly your answer. >>> >>> Are you saying that situation when user freshly installs Guix on >>> system with systemd (and thus has empty /gnu/store)? >> >>The "fix" I pushed will help anyone who does a new installation of Guix >>on a Systemd or Upstart-based system, after the next release of Guix. > > Unless I'm missing some other commit, this won't work. > > When I perform these steps: > 1] ./configure && make && sudo make install (or package installation) > 2] mkdir /gnu/store > 3] attempt to start daemon will fail as there is no guix-daemon in > @localstatedir@/guix/profiles/per-user/root/guix-profile/bin/guix-daemon > because there is no guix-daemon in /gnu/store > > Without daemon running you won't be able to make one in that location. Good point. To address this, we might actually need to revert 613d0895b92c677e0639d5e77c55043e38e020c8 (that is, keep @bindir@ in the .service files), and instead replace @bindir@ with @localstatedir@ in the recipe of the =E2=80=98guix=E2=80=99 package. That way, the install-from-source scenario Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 describes above = would work, *and* the binary tarball would refer to localstatedir as Leo intended. WDYT? Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Mar 09 07:42:28 2017 Received: (at 25852) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Mar 2017 12:42:28 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47215 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1clxOm-00053j-A4 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 07:42:28 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:48149) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1clxOk-00053b-2u for 25852@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 07:42:26 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay1.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED34EAAC7; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 12:42:22 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 13:42:29 +0100 From: =?utf-8?B?VG9tw6HFoSDEjGVjaA==?= To: Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= Subject: Re: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix Message-ID: <20170309124229.dqlc4y3nxdg44yzp@crashnator.suse.cz> References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> <877f429kju.fsf@gnu.org> <20170306213434.GA25316@jasmine> <20170307063330.bhv2ugsvi3qeofu5@penguin> <20170307195118.GA30247@jasmine> <20170307205848.42w2pusavz37dgwu@penguin> <20170307222215.GA4046@jasmine> <20170308062542.hfypmvgp2o6il2xf@penguin> <87innid8e3.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="dc4lsh7isbvlcbf5" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87innid8e3.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01) X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 25852 Cc: 25852@debbugs.gnu.org, Leo Famulari X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) --dc4lsh7isbvlcbf5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 11:58:12AM +0100, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 =C4=8Cech skribis: > >> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 05:22:15PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: >>>On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 09:58:48PM +0100, Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 =C4=8Cech wrot= e: >>>> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:51:18PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: >>>> > This will take effect for the next release of Guix; it addresses a >>>> > problem that arises when somebody installs the binary release of Gui= x. >>>> > >>>> > I'm not addressing downstream packages of Guix with this commit. >>>> >>>> I'm sorry, I may not understand correctly your answer. >>>> >>>> Are you saying that situation when user freshly installs Guix on >>>> system with systemd (and thus has empty /gnu/store)? >>> >>>The "fix" I pushed will help anyone who does a new installation of Guix >>>on a Systemd or Upstart-based system, after the next release of Guix. >> >> Unless I'm missing some other commit, this won't work. >> >> When I perform these steps: >> 1] ./configure && make && sudo make install (or package installation) >> 2] mkdir /gnu/store >> 3] attempt to start daemon will fail as there is no guix-daemon in >> @localstatedir@/guix/profiles/per-user/root/guix-profile/bin/guix-daem= on >> because there is no guix-daemon in /gnu/store >> >> Without daemon running you won't be able to make one in that location. > >Good point. > >To address this, we might actually need to revert >613d0895b92c677e0639d5e77c55043e38e020c8 (that is, keep @bindir@ in the >.service files), and instead replace @bindir@ with @localstatedir@ in >the recipe of the =E2=80=98guix=E2=80=99 package. > >That way, the install-from-source scenario Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 describes above= would >work, *and* the binary tarball would refer to localstatedir as Leo >intended. > >WDYT? That will eliminate the problem introduced by the Leo's change but still keep original problem. To adress the latter I'm thinking I'll just make simple wrapper script which will check whether new version in root user's profile exists and run from @bindir@ if not. Not the nicest solution but it is safe. Best regards, S_W --dc4lsh7isbvlcbf5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEDOrssfr9jDQthC2PSiPjT6AzQ20FAljBTbAACgkQSiPjT6Az Q20P7g/+LX6JYOLk8U7oTNbt5DBH8kWcC/veeFk6XLjZ6VVg5huVWzv3WRqME8oJ j1+3xFKjyZupRZGqS9KBhhxEFengBV/0vjYXjz6mCLrv6pXpR+nIg/E9U6gGEvvJ /10/gWUeHi/DatEILQkR2eCoennPE3c++9Mi1U0L1h22uwf9UlPWObam/wLfbMhJ BXAxtyvSF17ikBKG2mZvw2iDG42Q46TM/HCIrwkcIO2rgQycbAitVs4oZwYaA9o2 QjpXax7Y3MUrowa9l9TDxaR6fB9gRcQknzHf/q46qHI3ZBSgLZDKUaBUXwIE2hai 8Yb+hmdKlmWsuXrv+m1orESpuZtN1r+CIHtdbHpLGhoxfvVTIS9Hjg7iYm0oP5qg V14NlgzuemnI6TAiOXTp4R9VBYhvRwUj0OKqryCtmr9MZCG3p+uv4cy3EEXLMazg jvvC95Lsmn5zziS7O7n1fFkAyCwxwUUcPqjY2hf7Bbr2/YzHMNrlEv4wrZtUGQ9J fjuaZqHOWIIggpo+GkMmaNmD/kss+bDsCbS1nKTj2rfcibaL5Z997nFY62i89Nwz 3NHE99hQYqCeVXEEub8+KmodAR2Be84RCAw+HRa4ksSzM/XMyAQxUYJPneOePUnp iT+7bGPptRUKl5wl2pHE0Gjns3gsZoHgTX+T8PWsIpAKf9mOSMI= =caJy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --dc4lsh7isbvlcbf5-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Mar 09 10:42:46 2017 Received: (at 25852) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Mar 2017 15:42:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47864 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cm0DF-00012S-R8 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 10:42:46 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:53682) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cm0DE-00012E-Hs for 25852@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 10:42:44 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cm0D3-0007ZX-94 for 25852@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 10:42:39 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:49151) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cm0D3-0007ZT-5S; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 10:42:33 -0500 Received: from [193.50.110.248] (port=44472 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1cm0D2-0000RX-FX; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 10:42:32 -0500 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) To: =?utf-8?B?VG9tw6HFoSDEjGVjaA==?= Subject: Re: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> <877f429kju.fsf@gnu.org> <20170306213434.GA25316@jasmine> <20170307063330.bhv2ugsvi3qeofu5@penguin> <20170307195118.GA30247@jasmine> <20170307205848.42w2pusavz37dgwu@penguin> <20170307222215.GA4046@jasmine> <20170308062542.hfypmvgp2o6il2xf@penguin> <87innid8e3.fsf@gnu.org> <20170309124229.dqlc4y3nxdg44yzp@crashnator.suse.cz> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 19 =?utf-8?Q?Vent=C3=B4se?= an 225 de la =?utf-8?Q?R?= =?utf-8?Q?=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 16:42:30 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20170309124229.dqlc4y3nxdg44yzp@crashnator.suse.cz> (=?utf-8?B?IlRvbcOhxaEJxIxlY2giJ3M=?= message of "Thu, 9 Mar 2017 13:42:29 +0100") Message-ID: <87bmta8nix.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 25852 Cc: 25852@debbugs.gnu.org, Leo Famulari X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 =C4=8Cech skribis: > On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 11:58:12AM +0100, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >>Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 =C4=8Cech skribis: >> >>> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 05:22:15PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: >>>>On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 09:58:48PM +0100, Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 =C4=8Cech wro= te: >>>>> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:51:18PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: >>>>> > This will take effect for the next release of Guix; it addresses a >>>>> > problem that arises when somebody installs the binary release of Gu= ix. >>>>> > >>>>> > I'm not addressing downstream packages of Guix with this commit. >>>>> >>>>> I'm sorry, I may not understand correctly your answer. >>>>> >>>>> Are you saying that situation when user freshly installs Guix on >>>>> system with systemd (and thus has empty /gnu/store)? >>>> >>>>The "fix" I pushed will help anyone who does a new installation of Guix >>>>on a Systemd or Upstart-based system, after the next release of Guix. >>> >>> Unless I'm missing some other commit, this won't work. >>> >>> When I perform these steps: >>> 1] ./configure && make && sudo make install (or package installation) >>> 2] mkdir /gnu/store >>> 3] attempt to start daemon will fail as there is no guix-daemon in >>> @localstatedir@/guix/profiles/per-user/root/guix-profile/bin/guix-dae= mon >>> because there is no guix-daemon in /gnu/store >>> >>> Without daemon running you won't be able to make one in that location. >> >>Good point. >> >>To address this, we might actually need to revert >>613d0895b92c677e0639d5e77c55043e38e020c8 (that is, keep @bindir@ in the >>.service files), and instead replace @bindir@ with @localstatedir@ in >>the recipe of the =E2=80=98guix=E2=80=99 package. >> >>That way, the install-from-source scenario Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 describes abov= e would >>work, *and* the binary tarball would refer to localstatedir as Leo >>intended. >> >>WDYT? > > That will eliminate the problem introduced by the Leo's change but > still keep original problem. > > To adress the latter I'm thinking I'll just make simple wrapper script > which will check whether new version in root user's profile exists and > run from @bindir@ if not. > > Not the nicest solution but it is safe. Hmm, yeah, not great. I think most people get Guix through the binary tarball though, so that=E2=80=99s probably the most important thing to address, and maybe we s= hould just forget the installed-from-source scenario (but document it). Thoughts? Ludo=E2=80=99. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Mar 10 20:48:46 2017 Received: (at 25852) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Mar 2017 01:48:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50128 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cmW9G-0001S0-Ch for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 20:48:46 -0500 Received: from world.peace.net ([50.252.239.5]:38691) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cmW9D-0001Ro-D5 for 25852@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 20:48:44 -0500 Received: from pool-72-93-29-29.bstnma.east.verizon.net ([72.93.29.29] helo=jojen) by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cmW96-0004hX-V3; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 20:48:37 -0500 From: Mark H Weaver To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> <877f429kju.fsf@gnu.org> <87wpc1k0e5.fsf@netris.org> <87efy9gyr5.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 20:48:24 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87efy9gyr5.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Tue, 07 Mar 2017 11:35:58 +0100") Message-ID: <87k27wporb.fsf@netris.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 25852 Cc: 25852@debbugs.gnu.org, Leo Famulari X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > Mark H Weaver skribis: > >> We could simply issue a warning if the version of guix currently in use >> is more than N hours old, on the assumption that after N hours it's >> likely to be stale. The default value of N might be in the range 48-96 >> (2-4 days). A quick perusal through the recent commit log on our master >> branch indicates that it's quite rare for 4 days to pass without a >> security update. >> >> What do you think? > > That sounds like an easy and reasonable approach. > > I wonder what would be the best place to emit this warning. Upon =E2=80= =98guix > package -i=E2=80=99 maybe? Also "guix package -u" and the "guix system" commands that build systems. I suspect that many users run "guix pull" as their normal users but never think to run it as root. Mark From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 22 19:35:09 2017 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Apr 2017 23:35:09 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34899 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d24YX-00089v-AQ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2017 19:35:09 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:43462) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d24YV-00089J-Uh for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2017 19:35:08 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d24YN-00042O-0T for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2017 19:35:02 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:56060) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d24YM-00042J-Tw for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2017 19:34:58 -0400 Received: from reverse-83.fdn.fr ([80.67.176.83]:55606 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1d24YM-00016J-5j for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2017 19:34:58 -0400 Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 01:34:56 +0200 Message-Id: <87efwkf23j.fsf@gnu.org> To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: control message for bug #25852 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) severity 25852 important From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed May 10 09:12:17 2017 Received: (at 25852) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 May 2017 13:12:17 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35200 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d8RPc-0000sM-Rb for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 10 May 2017 09:12:17 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44655) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d8RPb-0000sB-H4 for 25852@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 10 May 2017 09:12:15 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d8RPR-0001Ry-I5 for 25852@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 10 May 2017 09:12:10 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:59338) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d8RPR-0001Ru-E9; Wed, 10 May 2017 09:12:05 -0400 Received: from reverse-83.fdn.fr ([80.67.176.83]:42020 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1d8RPQ-00029B-EJ; Wed, 10 May 2017 09:12:04 -0400 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) To: Mark H Weaver Subject: Re: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> <877f429kju.fsf@gnu.org> <87wpc1k0e5.fsf@netris.org> <87efy9gyr5.fsf@gnu.org> <87k27wporb.fsf@netris.org> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 21 =?utf-8?Q?Flor=C3=A9al?= an 225 de la =?utf-8?Q?R?= =?utf-8?Q?=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 15:12:01 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87k27wporb.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Fri, 10 Mar 2017 20:48:24 -0500") Message-ID: <877f1oua8u.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 25852 Cc: 25852@debbugs.gnu.org, Leo Famulari X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi there, Mark H Weaver skribis: > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > >> Mark H Weaver skribis: >> >>> We could simply issue a warning if the version of guix currently in use >>> is more than N hours old, on the assumption that after N hours it's >>> likely to be stale. The default value of N might be in the range 48-96 >>> (2-4 days). A quick perusal through the recent commit log on our master >>> branch indicates that it's quite rare for 4 days to pass without a >>> security update. >>> >>> What do you think? >> >> That sounds like an easy and reasonable approach. >> >> I wonder what would be the best place to emit this warning. Upon =E2=80= =98guix >> package -i=E2=80=99 maybe? > > Also "guix package -u" and the "guix system" commands that build > systems. I suspect that many users run "guix pull" as their normal > users but never think to run it as root. If there are no objections, I=E2=80=99ll push the attached patch. It sets a default value of 7 days (which I think is already more aggressive that what many are doing), which can be overridden with GUIX_DISTRO_AGE_WARNING. Ludo=E2=80=99. --=-=-= Content-Type: text/x-patch; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable diff --git a/guix/scripts.scm b/guix/scripts.scm index da35e71ac..b9fa561f1 100644 --- a/guix/scripts.scm +++ b/guix/scripts.scm @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ ;;; GNU Guix --- Functional package management for GNU -;;; Copyright =C2=A9 2013, 2014, 2015 Ludovic Court=C3=A8s +;;; Copyright =C2=A9 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017 Ludovic Court=C3=A8s ;;; Copyright =C2=A9 2014 Deck Pickard ;;; Copyright =C2=A9 2015, 2016 Alex Kost ;;; @@ -27,13 +27,16 @@ #:use-module (guix packages) #:use-module (guix derivations) #:use-module (srfi srfi-1) + #:use-module (srfi srfi-19) #:use-module (srfi srfi-37) #:use-module (ice-9 match) #:export (args-fold* parse-command-line maybe-build build-package - build-package-source)) + build-package-source + %distro-age-warning + warn-about-old-distro)) =20 ;;; Commentary: ;;; @@ -136,4 +139,39 @@ Show what and how will/would be built." #:dry-run? dry-run?) (return (show-derivation-outputs derivation)))))) =20 +(define %distro-age-warning + ;; The age (in seconds) above which we warn that the distro is too old. + (make-parameter (or (and=3D> (getenv "GUIX_DISTRO_AGE_WARNING") + (compose time-second + string->duration)) + (* 7 24 3600)))) + +(define* (warn-about-old-distro #:optional (old (%distro-age-warning)) + #:key (suggested-command + "guix package -u")) + "Emit a warning if Guix is older than OLD seconds." + (let-syntax ((false-if-not-found + (syntax-rules () + ((_ exp) + (catch 'system-error + (lambda () + exp) + (lambda args + (if (=3D ENOENT (system-error-errno args)) + #f + (apply throw args)))))))) + (define age + (match (false-if-not-found + (lstat (string-append (config-directory) "/latest"))) + (#f (* 2 old)) + (stat (- (time-second (current-time time-utc)) + (stat:mtime stat))))) + + (when (>=3D age old) + (warning (G_ "Your Guix installation is getting old. Consider +running 'guix pull' followed by '~a' to get up-to-date +packages and security updates.\n") + suggested-command) + (newline (guix-warning-port))))) + ;;; scripts.scm ends here diff --git a/guix/scripts/package.scm b/guix/scripts/package.scm index 92676c222..fbe19d522 100644 --- a/guix/scripts/package.scm +++ b/guix/scripts/package.scm @@ -859,6 +859,9 @@ processed, #f otherwise." (manifest-transaction-install step2))))) (new (manifest-perform-transaction manifest step3))) =20 + (unless (null? (manifest-transaction-install step3)) + (warn-about-old-distro)) + (unless (manifest-transaction-null? step3) (show-manifest-transaction store manifest step3 #:dry-run? dry-run?) diff --git a/guix/scripts/system.scm b/guix/scripts/system.scm index 2872bcae6..9c0976750 100644 --- a/guix/scripts/system.scm +++ b/guix/scripts/system.scm @@ -847,6 +847,8 @@ resulting from command-line parsing." ((shepherd-graph) (export-shepherd-graph os (current-output-port))) (else + (warn-about-old-distro #:suggested-command + "guix system reconfigure") (perform-action action os #:dry-run? dry? #:derivations-only? (assoc-ref opts diff --git a/guix/ui.scm b/guix/ui.scm index e551d48c3..e7cb40927 100644 --- a/guix/ui.scm +++ b/guix/ui.scm @@ -1008,6 +1008,7 @@ following patterns: \"1d\", \"1w\", \"1m\"." (make-time time-duration 0 (string->number (match:substring match 1))))) ((string-match "^([0-9]+)h$" str) + =3D> (lambda (match) (hours->duration 1 match))) ((string-match "^([0-9]+)d$" str) --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed May 10 10:13:58 2017 Received: (at 25852) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 May 2017 14:13:58 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36823 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d8SNK-0002hU-5S for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 10 May 2017 10:13:58 -0400 Received: from mail-qk0-f194.google.com ([209.85.220.194]:32819) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d8SNI-0002h3-Jx for 25852@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 10 May 2017 10:13:56 -0400 Received: by mail-qk0-f194.google.com with SMTP id o85so5108414qkh.0 for <25852@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 10 May 2017 07:13:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Qx4m7vlNYj5efmtKgixbdHqnZr8NePvkG1U7x59o0QY=; b=EJPT4uTwHn/Y97ennqwizIJscXLmTVoUDH2swQBBGhdTuAlGRVFJ8rLyI3/pJlzXMq PyHIk1g+5h44muE8wAUYOUh33UU1ZW4s4q0LtLo9UikjzVHHpwOOl0q8GItIVH9anuxp lVn5ZDK9t9k6BUv5xE7GnL/R9NQKRsphgZcUuakQhquVI+CMPLj0Ij0euu0H1BiNa6XV yStn7xGWxoIjio63zk54cnqMG7ygDQlqjDLkGyENt3eKMi8Pr1/AMtBLj9lYU3dydFp9 hS8IoXa6xu44SZ4DP+TCet/fBDN5qAZ9lEvSU8cLcZShPi6lzKv+VyG5ytFR+IABshEz JaTA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Qx4m7vlNYj5efmtKgixbdHqnZr8NePvkG1U7x59o0QY=; b=M5kVSfyGBiorlGKtoDFy4Rg2KFYoibmlxZXNEWmSsObI8Iao5J29+7ifinrc3qL9LX 9b3qhNrn9x9AnJ9LBS+9CngbE9YHvREL7SrYI34MQDBPu1nLqbWKfoM1PAivWmNbrBx8 3rnZSMD4S7qEGo2Plchre0iKQ/8yIzvnbCu7TBr8Q7Jh5QQ2SehSUYkXPcSOtK3QzPKu Og7KhyeXN3UyJrcnlGeH4ymuE/ktNrW2T5mk8xiVtHKaS3sC7RlO4LvYXDJcaABdZnJI 0R2DEtGIBjIS56cGlyl2Z+a3ewt8DyRxcCQC9qkppKudGg8V6FuRwZbw/8sgdUfeqFUb +qXA== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcAvVW5v+2Qts/ZN/PSrx0kip7RNnnPhgYQ4AeMlHoMSolNUXbRq BCbofJ5wxc9zbQ== X-Received: by 10.55.49.11 with SMTP id x11mr6080719qkx.12.1494425630843; Wed, 10 May 2017 07:13:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from g1 (c-73-167-118-254.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [73.167.118.254]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i51sm2234619qte.28.2017.05.10.07.13.50 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 10 May 2017 07:13:50 -0700 (PDT) From: myglc2 To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> <877f429kju.fsf@gnu.org> <87wpc1k0e5.fsf@netris.org> <87efy9gyr5.fsf@gnu.org> <87k27wporb.fsf@netris.org> <877f1oua8u.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 10:13:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: <877f1oua8u.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Wed, 10 May 2017 15:12:01 +0200") Message-ID: <86vap8yf36.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 25852 Cc: Mark H Weaver , Leo Famulari , 25852@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/) On 05/10/2017 at 15:12 Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > Hi there, > > Mark H Weaver skribis: > >> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: >> >>> Mark H Weaver skribis: >>> >>>> We could simply issue a warning if the version of guix currently in use >>>> is more than N hours old, on the assumption that after N hours it's >>>> likely to be stale. The default value of N might be in the range 48-96 >>>> (2-4 days). A quick perusal through the recent commit log on our mast= er >>>> branch indicates that it's quite rare for 4 days to pass without a >>>> security update. >>>> >>>> What do you think? >>> >>> That sounds like an easy and reasonable approach. >>> >>> I wonder what would be the best place to emit this warning. Upon =E2= =80=98guix >>> package -i=E2=80=99 maybe? >> >> Also "guix package -u" and the "guix system" commands that build >> systems. I suspect that many users run "guix pull" as their normal >> users but never think to run it as root. > > If there are no objections, I=E2=80=99ll push the attached patch. It set= s a > default value of 7 days (which I think is already more aggressive that > what many are doing), which can be overridden with > GUIX_DISTRO_AGE_WARNING. > > Ludo=E2=80=99. How about extending this ...=20 > + (warning (G_ "Your Guix installation is getting old. Consider > +running 'guix pull' followed by '~a' to get up-to-date > +packages and security updates.\n") ... to inform the user how old the installation is? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed May 10 16:16:57 2017 Received: (at 25852-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 May 2017 20:16:57 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37184 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d8Y2b-0004t3-L8 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 10 May 2017 16:16:57 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:45657) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d8Y2b-0004sq-5O for 25852-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 10 May 2017 16:16:57 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d8Y2V-0002Fx-Ea for 25852-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 10 May 2017 16:16:52 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:37457) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d8Y2Q-0002Du-LU; Wed, 10 May 2017 16:16:46 -0400 Received: from reverse-83.fdn.fr ([80.67.176.83]:58786 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1d8Y2P-0007j4-Pj; Wed, 10 May 2017 16:16:46 -0400 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) To: myglc2 Subject: Re: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> <877f429kju.fsf@gnu.org> <87wpc1k0e5.fsf@netris.org> <87efy9gyr5.fsf@gnu.org> <87k27wporb.fsf@netris.org> <877f1oua8u.fsf@gnu.org> <86vap8yf36.fsf@gmail.com> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 21 =?utf-8?Q?Flor=C3=A9al?= an 225 de la =?utf-8?Q?R?= =?utf-8?Q?=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 22:16:42 +0200 In-Reply-To: <86vap8yf36.fsf@gmail.com> (myglc2@gmail.com's message of "Wed, 10 May 2017 10:13:49 -0400") Message-ID: <878tm4sc0l.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 25852-done Cc: Mark H Weaver , Leo Famulari , 25852-done@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) myglc2 skribis: > How about extending this ...=20 > >> + (warning (G_ "Your Guix installation is getting old. Consider >> +running 'guix pull' followed by '~a' to get up-to-date >> +packages and security updates.\n") > > ... to inform the user how old the installation is? Good idea. I did that and pushed as 7fd952e05203d975fcb6cdabd2f742ade1b31b66. Thanks for your feedback! Ludo=E2=80=99. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri May 12 02:07:00 2017 Received: (at 25852-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 May 2017 06:07:00 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39609 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d93j8-0005a5-9u for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 12 May 2017 02:06:58 -0400 Received: from sender-of-o51.zoho.com ([135.84.80.216]:21118) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d93j5-0005Zw-Mg for 25852-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 12 May 2017 02:06:56 -0400 Received: from localhost (port-92-200-17-209.dynamic.qsc.de [92.200.17.209]) by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1494569211733803.9670507842563; Thu, 11 May 2017 23:06:51 -0700 (PDT) References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> <877f429kju.fsf@gnu.org> <87wpc1k0e5.fsf@netris.org> <87efy9gyr5.fsf@gnu.org> <87k27wporb.fsf@netris.org> <877f1oua8u.fsf@gnu.org> <86vap8yf36.fsf@gmail.com> <878tm4sc0l.fsf@gnu.org> User-agent: mu4e 0.9.18; emacs 25.2.1 From: Ricardo Wurmus To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Subject: Re: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix In-reply-to: <878tm4sc0l.fsf@gnu.org> 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: Fri, 12 May 2017 08:06:48 +0200 Message-ID: <87lgq2sj5z.fsf@elephly.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ZohoMailClient: External X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 25852-done Cc: 25852-done@debbugs.gnu.org, myglc2 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-) Ludovic Courtès writes: > myglc2 skribis: > >> How about extending this ... >> >>> + (warning (G_ "Your Guix installation is getting old. Consider >>> +running 'guix pull' followed by '~a' to get up-to-date >>> +packages and security updates.\n") >> >> ... to inform the user how old the installation is? > > Good idea. I did that and pushed as > 7fd952e05203d975fcb6cdabd2f742ade1b31b66. Does this do the right thing when .config/guix/latest points at a git checkout? The mtime of the “.config/guix/latest” link on one of my machines is from 2016, so Guix says it is too old, but it points to a git checkout, which is recent. -- Ricardo GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC https://elephly.net From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri May 12 04:29:28 2017 Received: (at 25852-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 May 2017 08:29:28 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39679 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d95x2-0000RK-Ar for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 12 May 2017 04:29:28 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:49520) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d95x1-0000R9-GP for 25852-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 12 May 2017 04:29:27 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d95wr-0002Tc-T1 for 25852-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 12 May 2017 04:29:22 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:39237) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d95wr-0002TY-Q0; Fri, 12 May 2017 04:29:17 -0400 Received: from [193.50.110.203] (port=45994 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1d95wo-0006kj-Kd; Fri, 12 May 2017 04:29:15 -0400 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) To: Ricardo Wurmus Subject: Re: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> <877f429kju.fsf@gnu.org> <87wpc1k0e5.fsf@netris.org> <87efy9gyr5.fsf@gnu.org> <87k27wporb.fsf@netris.org> <877f1oua8u.fsf@gnu.org> <86vap8yf36.fsf@gmail.com> <878tm4sc0l.fsf@gnu.org> <87lgq2sj5z.fsf@elephly.net> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 23 =?utf-8?Q?Flor=C3=A9al?= an 225 de la =?utf-8?Q?R?= =?utf-8?Q?=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 10:29:12 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87lgq2sj5z.fsf@elephly.net> (Ricardo Wurmus's message of "Fri, 12 May 2017 08:06:48 +0200") Message-ID: <874lwqtr53.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 25852-done Cc: 25852-done@debbugs.gnu.org, myglc2 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) Ricardo Wurmus skribis: > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > >> myglc2 skribis: >> >>> How about extending this ... >>> >>>> + (warning (G_ "Your Guix installation is getting old. Consider >>>> +running 'guix pull' followed by '~a' to get up-to-date >>>> +packages and security updates.\n") >>> >>> ... to inform the user how old the installation is? >> >> Good idea. I did that and pushed as >> 7fd952e05203d975fcb6cdabd2f742ade1b31b66. > > Does this do the right thing when .config/guix/latest points at a git > checkout? No it doesn=E2=80=99t, but I would argue that it unsupported. ;-) > The mtime of the =E2=80=9C.config/guix/latest=E2=80=9D link on one of my = machines is > from 2016, so Guix says it is too old, but it points to a git > checkout, which is recent. I would suggest: export GUIX_DISTRO_AGE_WARNING=3D1000m as a workaround. WDYT? Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri May 12 13:10:51 2017 Received: (at 25852-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 May 2017 17:10:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41182 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d9E5b-0006UR-2h for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 12 May 2017 13:10:51 -0400 Received: from mail-qk0-f196.google.com ([209.85.220.196]:33241) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d9E5Z-0006UD-T0 for 25852-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 12 May 2017 13:10:50 -0400 Received: by mail-qk0-f196.google.com with SMTP id o85so8614164qkh.0 for <25852-done@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 12 May 2017 10:10:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3f6A8ZxzBAloMByZ8agd6N7Gxn689XLnAaQBI67lDfA=; b=h7a3bY0Z43Swdf3f76M3Pww8q/BqccZ433nlCPaKEuVYIzAZ9dSsl/VI80KqOJjanW wtSrIbDOApsk7gS5D/c2od+HI+syK82Ln6OSQoe95A5tbsT5v4boKv6VvlZ7/gLBUIeg c/tyZC0QogcedwNgZ7OUBjaZXH14mDAbjcj36f9PbZWpuc61DtaoA3Z2z+4VdbWFNZNS CTZU9RoqnyYiCXiL+GQ8LyJUb4WzXekW7Lm7bi2ELbj0yYelA2hs9JR18sXX9Sqfkqit dnxl3I793dDn6tbtii74YReo0A9aJ6AmxIgw2b+a7LmJw9MnE3td6hK0yWaZU1DsdhOk DIPQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3f6A8ZxzBAloMByZ8agd6N7Gxn689XLnAaQBI67lDfA=; b=gmqP2Hiz8QBQ0NZpnvlx5P97dYqoYd70895Gu04wEImqDZXK3ofZowDCobVTkfxffS d7l0SlSMph+hFLZqIGi8VAm7TOlwH86DCo7zLd4tvXJkLFCDDX2Aliq9t584CvFpYhuG FZXovdvgxHTI1lg+jOfMS3rrTIQqfyffG9l3ksRjA19yCx2rvT/4UUYtwgIw6qn4j+Ez kVtBBeF6kd0C3aHzP+VVEgvPGkMNlyiHl8OyCJ4aGDbAhDBiEWYCmIcGf5arxg7mYM5m v4jauUT3CqWT1TPk7HL+his2mOi4ssbiZazeg5f28G5OPvHUrWdaSBT/7lPJO7Ltc/Em N2Dg== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcAEb+dAMTSLdG0Jn9FI7ZkZNgNMXUVO1PWT75Uoi7V22qQxnYdZ 72CioGUoBuCyjugOn20= X-Received: by 10.55.42.90 with SMTP id q87mr4365382qkh.273.1494609044229; Fri, 12 May 2017 10:10:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from g1 (c-73-167-118-254.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [73.167.118.254]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y76sm2598580qka.51.2017.05.12.10.10.43 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 12 May 2017 10:10:43 -0700 (PDT) From: myglc2 To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> <877f429kju.fsf@gnu.org> <87wpc1k0e5.fsf@netris.org> <87efy9gyr5.fsf@gnu.org> <87k27wporb.fsf@netris.org> <877f1oua8u.fsf@gnu.org> <86vap8yf36.fsf@gmail.com> <878tm4sc0l.fsf@gnu.org> <87lgq2sj5z.fsf@elephly.net> <874lwqtr53.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 13:10:42 -0400 In-Reply-To: <874lwqtr53.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Fri, 12 May 2017 10:29:12 +0200") Message-ID: <86shkac86l.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 25852-done Cc: Ricardo Wurmus , 25852-done@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/) On 05/12/2017 at 10:29 Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > Ricardo Wurmus skribis: > >> Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: >> >>> myglc2 skribis: >>> >>>> How about extending this ... >>>> >>>>> + (warning (G_ "Your Guix installation is getting old. Consider >>>>> +running 'guix pull' followed by '~a' to get up-to-date >>>>> +packages and security updates.\n") >>>> >>>> ... to inform the user how old the installation is? >>> >>> Good idea. I did that and pushed as >>> 7fd952e05203d975fcb6cdabd2f742ade1b31b66. >> >> Does this do the right thing when .config/guix/latest points at a git >> checkout? > > No it doesn=E2=80=99t, but I would argue that it unsupported. ;-) > >> The mtime of the =E2=80=9C.config/guix/latest=E2=80=9D link on one of my= machines is >> from 2016, so Guix says it is too old, but it points to a git >> checkout, which is recent. > > I would suggest: > > export GUIX_DISTRO_AGE_WARNING=3D1000m > > as a workaround. WDYT? This alters guix's stock behavior if/when one switches back to using 'guix pull'. Maybe a better thing to do is the following each time you update guix from a git checkout ... ln -f -s -T ~/src/guix/ ~/.config/guix/latest sudo ln -f -s -T ~/src/guix/ /root/.config/guix/latest From unknown Mon Jun 23 14:58:51 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 11:24:04 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator