GNU bug report logs - #33647
First `guix pull' behaves unexpectedly

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Björn Höfling
 <bjoern.hoefling <at> bjoernhoefling.de>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#33647: closed (First `guix pull' behaves unexpectedly)
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2018 09:42:01 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your message dated Fri, 7 Dec 2018 10:41:36 +0100
with message-id <20181207104136.4e98df66 <at> alma-ubu>
and subject line Re: bug#33647: First `guix pull' behaves unexpectedly
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #33647,
regarding First `guix pull' behaves unexpectedly
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)


-- 
33647: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=33647
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Diego Nicola Barbato <dnbarbato <at> posteo.de>
To: bug-guix <at> gnu.org
Subject: First `guix pull' behaves unexpectedly
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 15:56:48 +0100

Hello Guix,

The first time a user runs ‘guix pull’ after a fresh install it does not
seem to update guix.  ‘guix --version’ reports that guix is still
version 0.15.0 after running ‘guix pull’, instead of showing the hash of
the latest commit.
This can be mitigated by logging out and back in, after which
‘guix --version’ returns the expected version.

Greetings

Diego

[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Björn Höfling <bjoern.hoefling <at> bjoernhoefling.de>
To: Diego Nicola Barbato <dnbarbato <at> posteo.de>
Cc: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>, 33647-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#33647: First `guix pull' behaves unexpectedly
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 10:41:36 +0100

[Message part 4 (text/plain, inline)]

On Fri, 07 Dec 2018 09:36:31 +0100
Diego Nicola Barbato <dnbarbato <at> posteo.de> wrote:

> I believe this is it.  This also explains why ‘which guix’ returned
> the updated guix while ‘guix --version’ claimed it was still the older
> version, which I found rather confusing.
> I am afraid being unaware of this has led me to inadvertently
> downgrade GuixSD whenever I reconfigured for the first time after a
> fresh install.

OK, then I'm closing this issue.

Björn

[Message part 5 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.