From unknown Sun Jun 22 07:51:00 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#41116: Guix deploy fails with new version of Herd Resent-From: Alex Sassmannshausen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 22:24:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: report 41116 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: 41116@debbugs.gnu.org X-Debbugs-Original-To: Reply-To: alex@komputilo.eu Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.158880383131756 (code B ref -1); Wed, 06 May 2020 22:24:02 +0000 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 May 2020 22:23:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41506 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jWSSE-0008G7-SA for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 May 2020 18:23:51 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:60152) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jWSQG-0008CR-0f for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 May 2020 18:21:48 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:32884) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jWSQF-0007hA-RN for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 06 May 2020 18:21:47 -0400 Received: from www140.your-server.de ([88.198.28.10]:56478) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jWSQE-0007RB-9d for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 06 May 2020 18:21:47 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=komputilo.eu; s=default1904; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date: Reply-To:Subject:To:From:Sender:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=jaWMTbyp/qJ1MymZgslIatKJy466rfEHuXqFT7zC03I=; b=lomYOpEDKl+jBd7UPzrhG95nJd 1IvBjByubhBjZO5ozW2hKi1w/0YuVzLuHpl9PaRvn4CoueuFPbEQF3qVYO1QPYs1Z/s2Czj5gMkBx DpdgS7n3D8QKyeRGYDo79ION1xudJp9wsHCyq64vfc7IQ79P9umn+eL3QilmsZ1LZct+KWzlXDBR1 kVHjMtf3pgY8wgJDyZMDGr+gj2lQepl/tC00rzxb5OrUCp0EQzaQlUZ8LoAwziNsdgdTgHi8hsxqg DcQ9mG0lX3//l1D0GINkVoGccFtC4wPAlWTVv17ChFqD+qXFcYt76MtplS5sGM8bbkZZkJ66eL/k4 8maatFRA==; Received: from sslproxy02.your-server.de ([78.47.166.47]) by www140.your-server.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from ) id 1jWSQ4-0000RO-Qh for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 07 May 2020 00:21:36 +0200 Received: from [2a02:a03f:643c:5900:f200:b379:1817:18a7] (helo=watership) by sslproxy02.your-server.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jWSQ4-000WzS-Md for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 07 May 2020 00:21:36 +0200 User-agent: mu4e 1.2.0; emacs 26.3 From: Alex Sassmannshausen Date: Thu, 07 May 2020 00:21:36 +0200 Message-ID: <877dxog0wf.fsf@komputilo.eu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Authenticated-Sender: alex@komputilo.eu X-Virus-Scanned: Clear (ClamAV 0.102.2/25804/Wed May 6 14:13:11 2020) Received-SPF: pass client-ip=88.198.28.10; envelope-from=alex@komputilo.eu; helo=www140.your-server.de X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/05/06 18:21:37 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x (no timestamps) [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 06 May 2020 18:23:49 -0400 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: -2.4 (--) Hello, I maintain a number of servers using Guix deploy. It seems that the recent upgrade to Herd in Guix, and specifically commit 4c0cc7bed3de2c0e2d3a6e95b88693941e839eec might have introduced a bug. >From my testing, guix deploy currently consistently fails with: -----------------8<----------------------------->8------------------- ice-9/boot-9.scm:1667:16: In procedure raise-exception: ERROR: 1. &inferior-exception: arguments: (srfi-34 #" "Unrecognized keyword" () (#:file-creation-mask))] 7eff2bd7be00>>) inferior: #f stack: () -----------------8<----------------------------->8------------------- A workaround is to build the system configuration locally on the target server, then to reconfigure. It will still error at the same place, but at this point, after restarting the server, the new version of Herd will be running and both deploy and reconfigure will work. I don't know what a good solution to this could be, but it may be something we need to consider in future development of Herd. Best wishes, Alex From unknown Sun Jun 22 07:51:00 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#41116: Guix deploy fails with new version of Herd Resent-From: Marius Bakke Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 22:46:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 41116 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Alex Sassmannshausen , 41116@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 41116-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B41116.15888051451502 (code B ref 41116); Wed, 06 May 2020 22:46:01 +0000 Received: (at 41116) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 May 2020 22:45:45 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41543 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jWSnR-0000OA-2b for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 May 2020 18:45:45 -0400 Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.21]:50041) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jWSnO-0000Nv-Re for 41116@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 May 2020 18:45:43 -0400 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B94163CC; Wed, 6 May 2020 18:45:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 06 May 2020 18:45:36 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.com; h= from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type; s=fm2; bh=WYl0WfiNvoOubIcMrja7/LCn2n mLcCoAqf9iqrYBubo=; b=t2SgBMQI9uN6MRPAkNwoXSc2uL7BHaVozoRYuz+M11 6l7N1BIWeL20sbcndQCbqocz780qDyfgOO9vINB3q+b+yeIDju5nc0En9vjYiyqR HmxkX0JkDXWytPF4pa3ksQbqUTbp75RGdUrGEPcw+4R2tIbZYeKc3M1CckbCWQVy QQZjWXsVu4VlC7NAyAMhcsqyXz/q+zXoAPa10Ij03xurxQ0FDIc9FOIlWWkwxz7p 9PvMt6A7IBhf+Zww0L81uc5zcurhD23RiA4J8gjxMq01MlAlz4F2hXTMZqpSa862 Q7yOiaA34SsEIymKSzYKMQpCJCx8Tk6yDw4/TiFikwbg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=WYl0Wf iNvoOubIcMrja7/LCn2nmLcCoAqf9iqrYBubo=; b=22/ukPbUQFlU9xdBQWZmOd XASLDuEXhSpeUXnG1cISS2LHnCRR7ff4o3FVKaXBRckxWWgnU0uzfzY4mjowlWtp LRzV20Fl0+vqtm8GDy0XfNTv1Gv27qLYPruS2yg9qJ+5GRqzPDjArC/+Ey/EsXHb aE8TVUt2ewTk713WnHZzXl4Pvh1AYxwnq1HKzrPwIXLD9DPyjdC1yKQ29wqwo0Tm KM9fwPLAISzZOaBYJOGMyoN64WHYG4f2PeeYOWi+wHaqzOfr2e8n172DYxOtbtcI MHQvLVVBFw81PdxBVU/SB8+plMRC3rsDDxqNV+OzGFb18LPT5LevRu1ybDNIrOwA == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrjeelgddufecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffujghffgffkfggtgesghdtreertdertdenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhiuhhs uceurghkkhgvuceomhgsrghkkhgvsehfrghsthhmrghilhdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnheptddvgfegveegiedvffeujeeitdetvdektddugffgtdegfeeitdeikeffudfg ueffnecukfhppeekgedrvddtvddrieekrdejheenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtne curfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmsggrkhhkvgesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Received: from localhost (ti0006q161-2604.bb.online.no [84.202.68.75]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id BE6743280067; Wed, 6 May 2020 18:45:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Marius Bakke In-Reply-To: <877dxog0wf.fsf@komputilo.eu> References: <877dxog0wf.fsf@komputilo.eu> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.29.3 (https://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/26.3 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Thu, 07 May 2020 00:45:33 +0200 Message-ID: <87pnbg3coi.fsf@devup.no> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) 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: -1.7 (-) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Alex, Alex Sassmannshausen via Bug reports for GNU Guix writes: > Hello, > > I maintain a number of servers using Guix deploy. It seems that the > recent upgrade to Herd in Guix, and specifically commit > 4c0cc7bed3de2c0e2d3a6e95b88693941e839eec might have introduced a bug. > > From my testing, guix deploy currently consistently fails with: > -----------------8<----------------------------->8------------------- > ice-9/boot-9.scm:1667:16: In procedure raise-exception: > ERROR: > 1. &inferior-exception: > arguments: (srfi-34 #" "Unrecognized keyword" () (#:file-creation-mask))] = 7eff2bd7be00>>) > inferior: #f > stack: () > -----------------8<----------------------------->8------------------- > > A workaround is to build the system configuration locally on the target > server, then to reconfigure. It will still error at the same place, but > at this point, after restarting the server, the new version of Herd will > be running and both deploy and reconfigure will work. > > I don't know what a good solution to this could be, but it may be > something we need to consider in future development of Herd. This issue has been reported by a number of users on IRC. I think the problem is that the the #:file-creation-mask keyword requires support from the running Shepherd, which may not have it yet. I think we should revert commit 4c0cc7bed3de2c0e2d3a6e95b88693941e839eec until we find a smooth upgrade path. Can you try it and push if that fixes guix deploy? --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEu7At3yzq9qgNHeZDoqBt8qM6VPoFAl6zPg0ACgkQoqBt8qM6 VPpsqgf/e47Gm2VdRrIvBlX/D1i4n8S2paqNz9HMOdWpK2GgT/IZpDV3iPwE9Ue5 x7asKQGjHEqElJfuaH+Qud6eCLLv1P9otpVqN6YODpBk9mnIFdgrKjxW3fi4c+iU dk7+gTmdMimbRCI2CZWdfasDV7Ytx4qnaYNNDGAndeQC2rmAD+EFxIoBslN7Vxvn 7MtKqO677AgpMajPWXtYHC5d7GZJw4d9tB1m6D0ynjnISrgFzRlnjRnV28VoXtG6 bpYJHBlnNPoUp3LhzUI8U3N9FMZ48pbpoqzXkTYT/vbL2BVOBOm8xogETdD138AA EyQaBgnIlQy5UEiItaEMcIWRZ7zt9A== =+BgU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From unknown Sun Jun 22 07:51:00 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#41116: A naive proposal for a solution References: <877dxog0wf.fsf@komputilo.eu> In-Reply-To: <877dxog0wf.fsf@komputilo.eu> Resent-From: Alex Sassmannshausen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 22:51:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 41116 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: 41116@debbugs.gnu.org Reply-To: alex@komputilo.eu Received: via spool by 41116-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B41116.15888054111976 (code B ref 41116); Wed, 06 May 2020 22:51:01 +0000 Received: (at 41116) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 May 2020 22:50:11 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41548 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jWSri-0000Vn-Mh for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 May 2020 18:50:11 -0400 Received: from www140.your-server.de ([88.198.28.10]:38320) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jWSgm-0000DC-6z for 41116@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 May 2020 18:38:53 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=komputilo.eu; s=default1904; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date: Reply-To:Subject:To:From:Sender:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=EnaBhIUvvpKD4cWLSgouivbWZYOaNu6SQG08qG+bLQY=; b=gwGcjO+xUSQaYPnXRsoFceSuhf OtF97UiHOTmr6p/oiyAREO7IErFJ/RrpbIbJ0lLJc9584D9KFRgNdMv1ted2Z9/dDaPl8xmp8uYSc YK8D4pWPgVK8tXs9t6RG/eHOpr5CjNUZTkdN+LhT8phfXfNLZ5tjYRISQu9DqgQlTCe9fGQp+6eyM cKDxGWyIpxtApwqsQmmFSTAwF3tBVAdEP3v2PLLPGx4GXxKsGt47pfP99KkNciZ90Src+hb4m32/7 DzBevR05DKTmSA3H57v8JR46ikMqOqSPmP0FcTKYSLqAcuCkVCU2K3au0H1swaeat2ucoZjRroaWw Z1S7/wpg==; Received: from sslproxy06.your-server.de ([78.46.172.3]) by www140.your-server.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from ) id 1jWSge-00034R-OV for 41116@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 May 2020 00:38:45 +0200 Received: from [2a02:a03f:643c:5900:f200:b379:1817:18a7] (helo=watership) by sslproxy06.your-server.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jWSge-000NiI-KK for 41116@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 May 2020 00:38:44 +0200 User-agent: mu4e 1.2.0; emacs 26.3 From: Alex Sassmannshausen Date: Thu, 07 May 2020 00:38:44 +0200 Message-ID: <875zd8g03v.fsf@komputilo.eu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Authenticated-Sender: alex@komputilo.eu X-Virus-Scanned: Clear (ClamAV 0.102.2/25804/Wed May 6 14:13:11 2020) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 06 May 2020 18:50:09 -0400 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: -1.0 (-) Upon thinking further about this it seems to me the problem is caused by guix deploy attempting to restart services as well as it can during deployment. When this fails deployment fails. guix system reconfigure on the other hand does not do this (afaik). As a result it can complete. Once reconfigure is completed a reboot switches to the new system version and is then thus able to restart the services. If all this is correct, then the long-discussed guix deploy feature of service restart policies would resolve this issue elegantly: When a similar herd upgrade in future looms, a switch away from "restart running services" to "no restart services" or "reboot after deployment" would avoid this currently hard-coded failure mode. Food for thought perhaps, if my understanding is anywhere close to right, that is. Alex From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu May 07 06:46:26 2020 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 May 2020 10:46:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42160 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jWe2s-0006lS-3B for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 May 2020 06:46:26 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:46586) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jWe2q-0006lF-QD for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 May 2020 06:46:25 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:47919) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jWe2l-0004py-Gr for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 May 2020 06:46:19 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=35990 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jWe2k-0007yI-VW for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 May 2020 06:46:19 -0400 Date: Thu, 07 May 2020 12:46:17 +0200 Message-Id: <87a72kdnuu.fsf@gnu.org> To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= Subject: control message for bug #41116 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) 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: -3.3 (---) severity 41116 important quit From unknown Sun Jun 22 07:51:00 2025 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.505 (Entity 5.505) X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org From: help-debbugs@gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System) To: alex@komputilo.eu Subject: bug#41116: closed (Re: bug#41116: Guix deploy fails with new version of Herd) Message-ID: References: <871rnwdj5p.fsf@gnu.org> <877dxog0wf.fsf@komputilo.eu> X-Gnu-PR-Message: they-closed 41116 X-Gnu-PR-Package: guix Reply-To: 41116@debbugs.gnu.org Date: Thu, 07 May 2020 12:28:02 +0000 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----------=_1588854482-21708-1" This is a multi-part message in MIME format... ------------=_1588854482-21708-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Your bug report #41116: Guix deploy fails with new version of Herd which was filed against the guix package, has been closed. The explanation is attached below, along with your original report. If you require more details, please reply to 41116@debbugs.gnu.org. --=20 41116: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D41116 GNU Bug Tracking System Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems ------------=_1588854482-21708-1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: (at 41116-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 May 2020 12:27:58 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42352 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jWfd8-0005df-65 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 May 2020 08:27:58 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:42258) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jWfd6-0005d2-DE for 41116-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 May 2020 08:27:56 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:49382) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jWfcz-0003Sn-QI; Thu, 07 May 2020 08:27:49 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=36070 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jWfcy-0006Cd-OB; Thu, 07 May 2020 08:27:49 -0400 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= To: Marius Bakke Subject: Re: bug#41116: Guix deploy fails with new version of Herd References: <877dxog0wf.fsf@komputilo.eu> <87pnbg3coi.fsf@devup.no> Date: Thu, 07 May 2020 14:27:46 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87pnbg3coi.fsf@devup.no> (Marius Bakke's message of "Thu, 07 May 2020 00:45:33 +0200") Message-ID: <871rnwdj5p.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 41116-done Cc: 41116-done@debbugs.gnu.org, Alex Sassmannshausen , Diego Nicola Barbato 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: -3.3 (---) Hello Alex & Marius, Marius Bakke skribis: > Alex Sassmannshausen via Bug reports for GNU Guix > writes: > >> Hello, >> >> I maintain a number of servers using Guix deploy. It seems that the >> recent upgrade to Herd in Guix, and specifically commit >> 4c0cc7bed3de2c0e2d3a6e95b88693941e839eec might have introduced a bug. >> >> From my testing, guix deploy currently consistently fails with: >> -----------------8<----------------------------->8------------------- >> ice-9/boot-9.scm:1667:16: In procedure raise-exception: >> ERROR: >> 1. &inferior-exception: >> arguments: (srfi-34 #" "Unrecognized keyword" () (#:file-creation-mask))]= 7eff2bd7be00>>) >> inferior: #f >> stack: () >> -----------------8<----------------------------->8------------------- >> >> A workaround is to build the system configuration locally on the target >> server, then to reconfigure. It will still error at the same place, but >> at this point, after restarting the server, the new version of Herd will >> be running and both deploy and reconfigure will work. >> >> I don't know what a good solution to this could be, but it may be >> something we need to consider in future development of Herd. > > This issue has been reported by a number of users on IRC. I think the > problem is that the the #:file-creation-mask keyword requires support > from the running Shepherd, which may not have it yet. I think we should > revert commit 4c0cc7bed3de2c0e2d3a6e95b88693941e839eec until we find a > smooth upgrade path. Can you try it and push if that fixes guix deploy? I=E2=80=99ve reverted the patch in 5aa4d2dcf2f4f8786358feb45338893ed08a4cd9. Diego: I guess we can reinstate the patch =E2=80=9Clater=E2=80=9D, once She= pherd 0.8 can be considered widespread. More importantly, we should handle service reload failures more gracefully, as proposed in , for both =E2=80=98reconfigure=E2=80=99 and =E2=80=98deploy=E2=80=99. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99. ------------=_1588854482-21708-1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 May 2020 22:23:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41506 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jWSSE-0008G7-SA for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 May 2020 18:23:51 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:60152) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jWSQG-0008CR-0f for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 May 2020 18:21:48 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:32884) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jWSQF-0007hA-RN for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 06 May 2020 18:21:47 -0400 Received: from www140.your-server.de ([88.198.28.10]:56478) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jWSQE-0007RB-9d for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 06 May 2020 18:21:47 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=komputilo.eu; s=default1904; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date: Reply-To:Subject:To:From:Sender:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=jaWMTbyp/qJ1MymZgslIatKJy466rfEHuXqFT7zC03I=; b=lomYOpEDKl+jBd7UPzrhG95nJd 1IvBjByubhBjZO5ozW2hKi1w/0YuVzLuHpl9PaRvn4CoueuFPbEQF3qVYO1QPYs1Z/s2Czj5gMkBx DpdgS7n3D8QKyeRGYDo79ION1xudJp9wsHCyq64vfc7IQ79P9umn+eL3QilmsZ1LZct+KWzlXDBR1 kVHjMtf3pgY8wgJDyZMDGr+gj2lQepl/tC00rzxb5OrUCp0EQzaQlUZ8LoAwziNsdgdTgHi8hsxqg DcQ9mG0lX3//l1D0GINkVoGccFtC4wPAlWTVv17ChFqD+qXFcYt76MtplS5sGM8bbkZZkJ66eL/k4 8maatFRA==; Received: from sslproxy02.your-server.de ([78.47.166.47]) by www140.your-server.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from ) id 1jWSQ4-0000RO-Qh for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 07 May 2020 00:21:36 +0200 Received: from [2a02:a03f:643c:5900:f200:b379:1817:18a7] (helo=watership) by sslproxy02.your-server.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jWSQ4-000WzS-Md for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 07 May 2020 00:21:36 +0200 User-agent: mu4e 1.2.0; emacs 26.3 From: Alex Sassmannshausen To: Subject: Guix deploy fails with new version of Herd Date: Thu, 07 May 2020 00:21:36 +0200 Message-ID: <877dxog0wf.fsf@komputilo.eu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Authenticated-Sender: alex@komputilo.eu X-Virus-Scanned: Clear (ClamAV 0.102.2/25804/Wed May 6 14:13:11 2020) Received-SPF: pass client-ip=88.198.28.10; envelope-from=alex@komputilo.eu; helo=www140.your-server.de X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/05/06 18:21:37 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x (no timestamps) [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 06 May 2020 18:23:49 -0400 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: alex@komputilo.eu Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) Hello, I maintain a number of servers using Guix deploy. It seems that the recent upgrade to Herd in Guix, and specifically commit 4c0cc7bed3de2c0e2d3a6e95b88693941e839eec might have introduced a bug. >From my testing, guix deploy currently consistently fails with: -----------------8<----------------------------->8------------------- ice-9/boot-9.scm:1667:16: In procedure raise-exception: ERROR: 1. &inferior-exception: arguments: (srfi-34 #" "Unrecognized keyword" () (#:file-creation-mask))] 7eff2bd7be00>>) inferior: #f stack: () -----------------8<----------------------------->8------------------- A workaround is to build the system configuration locally on the target server, then to reconfigure. It will still error at the same place, but at this point, after restarting the server, the new version of Herd will be running and both deploy and reconfigure will work. I don't know what a good solution to this could be, but it may be something we need to consider in future development of Herd. Best wishes, Alex ------------=_1588854482-21708-1-- From unknown Sun Jun 22 07:51:00 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#41116: Guix deploy fails with new version of Herd Resent-From: Diego Nicola Barbato Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 07 May 2020 13:30:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 41116 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 41116-done@debbugs.gnu.org, Marius Bakke , Alex Sassmannshausen Received: via spool by 41116-done@debbugs.gnu.org id=D41116.158885817828951 (code D ref 41116); Thu, 07 May 2020 13:30:02 +0000 Received: (at 41116-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 May 2020 13:29:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42415 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jWgan-0007Wt-Ug for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 May 2020 09:29:38 -0400 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:48647) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jWgam-0007Wc-AR for 41116-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 May 2020 09:29:36 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72C252400FF for <41116-done@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 7 May 2020 15:29:30 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.de; s=2017; t=1588858170; bh=+ICI1YhqyD7EmL5lZ0Mado+Y5TS6UkKtpxdyo733/xo=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=Bwm7J2U3JybFpl6jR4mPMo4zkhDTxjwSjexDk9HhFuSc0pq1uZKJTVjg/HQW5QLk3 HoiF6H+2ivvXjCY9vh31L28Ibvkow1UwQze7pXpLFw2SFvyUDFESSK/EpuuuzEblRy QMrltkyMY10cqgbQBzpKVrfEjnkX1E+CciK8d2hrWmgOWhVKfoMwW7S0kJQMSSQDPs z4f2j0tjPnInKxikGZZgNx6rAOm8as5nrTEiEI9Y7jnm32Hvn9dg3/cFzguST7+gLB 3NlwEZwuShj9QPjXP5VKmLsSPU9XLWyr83x+3fz0rZ+CHuWLvwcP+f49vHqHxLaa4x 7z9fYNBKKlvxw== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 49HvSn4rXbz6tmp; Thu, 7 May 2020 15:29:29 +0200 (CEST) From: Diego Nicola Barbato References: <877dxog0wf.fsf@komputilo.eu> <87pnbg3coi.fsf@devup.no> <871rnwdj5p.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 07 May 2020 15:29:29 +0200 In-Reply-To: <871rnwdj5p.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Thu, 07 May 2020 14:27:46 +0200") Message-ID: <875zd7na9y.fsf@GlaDOS.home> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) 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: -3.3 (---) Hey, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > Hello Alex & Marius, > > Marius Bakke skribis: > >> Alex Sassmannshausen via Bug reports for GNU Guix >> writes: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I maintain a number of servers using Guix deploy. It seems that the >>> recent upgrade to Herd in Guix, and specifically commit >>> 4c0cc7bed3de2c0e2d3a6e95b88693941e839eec might have introduced a bug. >>> >>> From my testing, guix deploy currently consistently fails with: >>> -----------------8<----------------------------->8------------------- >>> ice-9/boot-9.scm:1667:16: In procedure raise-exception: >>> ERROR: >>> 1. &inferior-exception: >>> arguments: (srfi-34 #" "Unrecognized keyword" () (#:file-creation-mask))= ] 7eff2bd7be00>>) >>> inferior: #f >>> stack: () >>> -----------------8<----------------------------->8------------------- >>> >>> A workaround is to build the system configuration locally on the target >>> server, then to reconfigure. It will still error at the same place, but >>> at this point, after restarting the server, the new version of Herd will >>> be running and both deploy and reconfigure will work. >>> >>> I don't know what a good solution to this could be, but it may be >>> something we need to consider in future development of Herd. >> >> This issue has been reported by a number of users on IRC. I think the >> problem is that the the #:file-creation-mask keyword requires support >> from the running Shepherd, which may not have it yet. I think we should >> revert commit 4c0cc7bed3de2c0e2d3a6e95b88693941e839eec until we find a >> smooth upgrade path. Can you try it and push if that fixes guix deploy? > > I=E2=80=99ve reverted the patch in 5aa4d2dcf2f4f8786358feb45338893ed08a4c= d9. > > Diego: I guess we can reinstate the patch =E2=80=9Clater=E2=80=9D, once S= hepherd 0.8 can > be considered widespread. I'm sorry I broke reconfigure and deploy. I didn't consider testing upgrading from before Shepherd 0.8 to after my change and I didn't even think of deploy. Going forth I'll leave messing with core functionality to the pros. > More importantly, we should handle service reload failures more > gracefully, as proposed in , > for both =E2=80=98reconfigure=E2=80=99 and =E2=80=98deploy=E2=80=99. Regards, Diego From unknown Sun Jun 22 07:51:00 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#41116: Guix deploy fails with new version of Herd Resent-From: Alex Sassmannshausen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 07 May 2020 15:42:03 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 41116 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Marius Bakke Cc: 41116@debbugs.gnu.org Reply-To: alex@komputilo.eu Received: via spool by 41116-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B41116.158886607611321 (code B ref 41116); Thu, 07 May 2020 15:42:03 +0000 Received: (at 41116) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 May 2020 15:41:16 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43767 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jWieB-0002wX-Ko for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 May 2020 11:41:16 -0400 Received: from www140.your-server.de ([88.198.28.10]:37292) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jWeqY-00045t-Oc for 41116@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 May 2020 07:37:47 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=komputilo.eu; s=default1904; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date: In-reply-to:Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:From:References:Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=6o4tXA/wptM23HO6HPsH4OvlSSqZMU8WOLZe5Ry3RWk=; b=f9A/qvOSsKTvFZpJezQaOBuV0 okkzlsaOJ8h5Kg7yXWyZDoYlfoBCOvrb+ldfbWCnWguQVmNxel/fb6J2VmIhe9AC/hWpbRCqQspbM tBLhosFg8vr5TBl3oDbeIpYPuED2tdhyThb29yNAq6MYuT57+Xqephidtauu7CSa1iF4Bvmuc4jlq w/OlkJv96i1hHMqfCA67JD20LI51BUO2Zhx0byNNMN6KI5aiBdUh1QtPk8PQfypZdtbbWKJXhZiMH M9Ua33OirOPAQj+l0byowhh2kUlJiU6YLmVi59duDDzYRKJGW6Muucker+Qj00b8X8p4QzmIziKzf okCEbWU4g==; Received: from sslproxy02.your-server.de ([78.47.166.47]) by www140.your-server.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from ) id 1jWeqP-0003zq-O7; Thu, 07 May 2020 13:37:38 +0200 Received: from [2a02:a03f:643c:5900:f200:b379:1817:18a7] (helo=watership) by sslproxy02.your-server.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jWeqP-0003FB-K1; Thu, 07 May 2020 13:37:37 +0200 References: <877dxog0wf.fsf@komputilo.eu> <87pnbg3coi.fsf@devup.no> User-agent: mu4e 1.2.0; emacs 26.3 From: Alex Sassmannshausen In-reply-to: <87pnbg3coi.fsf@devup.no> Date: Thu, 07 May 2020 13:37:37 +0200 Message-ID: <871rnwf01q.fsf@komputilo.eu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Authenticated-Sender: alex@komputilo.eu X-Virus-Scanned: Clear (ClamAV 0.102.2/25804/Wed May 6 14:13:11 2020) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 07 May 2020 11:41:14 -0400 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: -1.0 (-) Hi Marius, Marius Bakke writes: > Hi Alex, > > [...] > > This issue has been reported by a number of users on IRC. I think the > problem is that the the #:file-creation-mask keyword requires support > from the running Shepherd, which may not have it yet. I think we should > revert commit 4c0cc7bed3de2c0e2d3a6e95b88693941e839eec until we find a > smooth upgrade path. Can you try it and push if that fixes guix deploy? I believe Ludovic has now done this. I will test and close this bug if it is now working. Cheers, Alex From unknown Sun Jun 22 07:51:00 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#41116: Guix deploy fails with new version of Herd Resent-From: Marius Bakke Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 08 May 2020 13:45:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 41116 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Diego Nicola Barbato , Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 41116-done@debbugs.gnu.org, Alex Sassmannshausen Received: via spool by 41116-done@debbugs.gnu.org id=D41116.15889454836621 (code D ref 41116); Fri, 08 May 2020 13:45:01 +0000 Received: (at 41116-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 May 2020 13:44:43 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44779 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jX3Ii-0001iU-JZ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 08 May 2020 09:44:43 -0400 Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.27]:40895) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jX3Ig-0001iH-V8 for 41116-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 08 May 2020 09:44:27 -0400 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E0955C0238; Fri, 8 May 2020 09:44:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 08 May 2020 09:44:21 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.com; h= from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type; s=fm2; bh=JmchjHPj3D2ouArBXlc8nB2UAH 9hN9TZugmf7VIO7Fo=; b=CC0XkvJNhcCq/PLyqt6RpEwpx0yFai00hOjAsExWh0 vdtWdC8ZSRuDF84nyNOdR114fUFWSBXhhemK3yt0Wlyt0NbDNVKd8WvuI87PWuAc cMKYITJKdJp1tWCEq29vasiQsC5rhJsQGq5kPscrHDgw5zy1ScN71qBIIFrZzQ0Y g2rG3OnMsnkZfrFEellKx7JxBsJtKzXIS/Svct3mTTL+F6FOkqM6mm9KoCdRbqUh dPs26M0CBih63urQtV+RApvKfOKKSOnqGsmT6YstMU8cVUCHduJ2gXMkKOFv1ICR KzuKUBmRJPk+rsdzEsIYj3Tate5P2xwf4A65ZxMrkd8w== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=JmchjH Pj3D2ouArBXlc8nB2UAH9hN9TZugmf7VIO7Fo=; b=sn6P2P+Jt1r3UCa4dZ+ZO6 9gbF6/ws0C95TViTBxmzAr1QEbWQ3j0INvPeZO9Zdj2pxhLijtG92Xtv5/FcLaMD EfszIltnImPkFQhtP3tB/UNiI93Z0SUeTcuovUlfIvFj7pZkuZw2pqRM7kTuY3gh SKOvp9RQeu96/ORE5VNH6PXpcj0kR2oAsE6CigMOfPtDQHmC6oko19QjjQDKfoht thltUDuwnYRf+Pd7a2hxlO/CSoVOJLOtEXnFTZFef9WMBu/0cWhpXHaDqG0oklwP a0xFqS9wADjjnIyxLAx40Ct3VVtufXX177/j8nE4gRid7yHPXrj9HtpOUlnb5qwg == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrkeefgddtvdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffujghffgffkfggtgesghdtreertderjeenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhiuhhs uceurghkkhgvuceomhgsrghkkhgvsehfrghsthhmrghilhdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepkedtleffveevtdelvdevudegffeifffhleegheetudegvdeggeeuudejhfej hfetnecukfhppeekgedrvddtvddrieekrdejheenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtne curfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmsggrkhhkvgesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Received: from localhost (ti0006q161-2604.bb.online.no [84.202.68.75]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 98E333065E69; Fri, 8 May 2020 09:44:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Marius Bakke In-Reply-To: <875zd7na9y.fsf@GlaDOS.home> References: <877dxog0wf.fsf@komputilo.eu> <87pnbg3coi.fsf@devup.no> <871rnwdj5p.fsf@gnu.org> <875zd7na9y.fsf@GlaDOS.home> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.29.3 (https://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/26.3 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Fri, 08 May 2020 15:44:18 +0200 Message-ID: <87eeru35jh.fsf@devup.no> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) 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: -1.0 (-) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Diego Nicola Barbato writes: > Hey, > > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > >> Hello Alex & Marius, >> >> Marius Bakke skribis: >> >>> Alex Sassmannshausen via Bug reports for GNU Guix >>> writes: >>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> I maintain a number of servers using Guix deploy. It seems that the >>>> recent upgrade to Herd in Guix, and specifically commit >>>> 4c0cc7bed3de2c0e2d3a6e95b88693941e839eec might have introduced a bug. >>>> >>>> From my testing, guix deploy currently consistently fails with: >>>> -----------------8<----------------------------->8------------------- >>>> ice-9/boot-9.scm:1667:16: In procedure raise-exception: >>>> ERROR: >>>> 1. &inferior-exception: >>>> arguments: (srfi-34 #" "Unrecognized keyword" () (#:file-creation-mask)= )] 7eff2bd7be00>>) >>>> inferior: #f >>>> stack: () >>>> -----------------8<----------------------------->8------------------- >>>> >>>> A workaround is to build the system configuration locally on the target >>>> server, then to reconfigure. It will still error at the same place, b= ut >>>> at this point, after restarting the server, the new version of Herd wi= ll >>>> be running and both deploy and reconfigure will work. >>>> >>>> I don't know what a good solution to this could be, but it may be >>>> something we need to consider in future development of Herd. >>> >>> This issue has been reported by a number of users on IRC. I think the >>> problem is that the the #:file-creation-mask keyword requires support >>> from the running Shepherd, which may not have it yet. I think we should >>> revert commit 4c0cc7bed3de2c0e2d3a6e95b88693941e839eec until we find a >>> smooth upgrade path. Can you try it and push if that fixes guix deploy? >> >> I=E2=80=99ve reverted the patch in 5aa4d2dcf2f4f8786358feb45338893ed08a4= cd9. >> >> Diego: I guess we can reinstate the patch =E2=80=9Clater=E2=80=9D, once = Shepherd 0.8 can >> be considered widespread. > > I'm sorry I broke reconfigure and deploy. I didn't consider testing > upgrading from before Shepherd 0.8 to after my change and I didn't even > think of deploy. Going forth I'll leave messing with core functionality > to the pros. Mistakes happen, don't worry about it. One thing that would be really useful and can prevent such situations in the future is to have a "system test" that tries to run reconfigure from the latest released version of Guix (currently 1.1.0). There are already a few Shepherd tests in gnu/tests/base.scm and gnu/tests/reconfigure.scm that can be used as inspiration. Food for thought, patches welcome, etc. :-) --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEu7At3yzq9qgNHeZDoqBt8qM6VPoFAl61YjIACgkQoqBt8qM6 VPo5Tgf/Ywil3T2XY/cMzIsHfAcfVJ+vFJCjFsKTyRnSCjHjLWpD6GBX27jbsTmh cMFdO0PNPn0lG0jOhGoWdg1dxlAD5BMjrYdXCEvYIrnG49VPxd/5JkJMSMoUKpN3 fOf8Ki959fxiFZpwFmbuqat5f7b34faMSm0h8kKoGzqj4oNJhfx1miq9ewP5jAVw bhRSCohWywjgkAqrmAW7FBh26E1i0Rv4/FeUsH4nhTYH5Bg46eSn85SnsuyCwI7L oyzcNvr+uJHlh1B5rV/Udi6dfmEWAd3JiJA/ebrlGtSHRqQhjN3FYcpaKII4rMYx uo9mkTRdJ2LFi37ZHTJ9ym92xW9J8g== =RZPU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From unknown Sun Jun 22 07:51:00 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#41116: Guix deploy fails with new version of Herd Resent-From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 09 May 2020 23:24:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 41116 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Marius Bakke Cc: 41116-done@debbugs.gnu.org, Alex Sassmannshausen , Diego Nicola Barbato Received: via spool by 41116-done@debbugs.gnu.org id=D41116.158906660719009 (code D ref 41116); Sat, 09 May 2020 23:24:02 +0000 Received: (at 41116-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 May 2020 23:23:27 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48567 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jXYoY-0004wX-Td for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 09 May 2020 19:23:27 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:46986) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jXYoW-0004wJ-Tp for 41116-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 09 May 2020 19:23:25 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:34032) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jXYoR-0006O2-8c; Sat, 09 May 2020 19:23:19 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=40862 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jXYoQ-0008Jd-NL; Sat, 09 May 2020 19:23:19 -0400 From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= References: <877dxog0wf.fsf@komputilo.eu> <87pnbg3coi.fsf@devup.no> <871rnwdj5p.fsf@gnu.org> <875zd7na9y.fsf@GlaDOS.home> <87eeru35jh.fsf@devup.no> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 22 =?UTF-8?Q?Flor=C3=A9al?= an 228 de la =?UTF-8?Q?R=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-pc-linux-gnu Date: Sun, 10 May 2020 01:23:15 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87eeru35jh.fsf@devup.no> (Marius Bakke's message of "Fri, 08 May 2020 15:44:18 +0200") Message-ID: <87r1vsbsm4.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) 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: -3.3 (---) Hi, Marius Bakke skribis: > Diego Nicola Barbato writes: [...] >>> I=E2=80=99ve reverted the patch in 5aa4d2dcf2f4f8786358feb45338893ed08a= 4cd9. >>> >>> Diego: I guess we can reinstate the patch =E2=80=9Clater=E2=80=9D, once= Shepherd 0.8 can >>> be considered widespread. >> >> I'm sorry I broke reconfigure and deploy. I didn't consider testing >> upgrading from before Shepherd 0.8 to after my change and I didn't even >> think of deploy. Going forth I'll leave messing with core functionality >> to the pros. > > Mistakes happen, don't worry about it. Yup! Plus, the person who reviewed the patch, undoubtedly an equally nice person, didn=E2=80=99t notice the issue either. :-) > One thing that would be really useful and can prevent such situations in > the future is to have a "system test" that tries to run reconfigure from > the latest released version of Guix (currently 1.1.0). > > There are already a few Shepherd tests in gnu/tests/base.scm and > gnu/tests/reconfigure.scm that can be used as inspiration. Yes. I was also wondering if it would make sense for services to somehow state the major+minor version they=E2=80=99re targeting. Ludo=E2=80=99.