GNU bug report logs - #43960
incompatible bytecode version

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Bengt Richter <bokr <at> bokr.com>
To: zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 43960 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>, Дмитрий Поляков <liltechdude <at> gmail.com>
Subject: bug#43960: 
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 15:52:49 +0200

On +2020-10-15 11:47:30 +0200, zimoun wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 09:53, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> > I don’t think it’s a reasonable response: it’s a fact that we naturally
> > tend to read manuals sparsely, at best.
> >
> > Since the pastes vanished, how did ‘sudo guix pull’ lead to incompatible
> > bytecode warnings?
> 
> If I remember correctly (which is neither a reasonable response :-)), it
> should highly come from the user config.  And the investigation needs
> more information, e.g., as Tobias asks: the output of:
> 
>   $ type guix
>   $ ls -l ~/.config/guix/current
>   $ sudo rm ~/.config/guix/current
>   $ /run/current-system/profile/bin/guix pull
>   $ hash guix
>   $ type guix
> 
> All the best,
> simon
>

If there is a left-over from old manual installation advice like
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
/usr/local/bin/guix:
    symbolic link to /var/guix/profiles/per-user/root/current-guix/bin/guix
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
could it interfere in any way with the above, or subsequent operation?

-- 
Regards,
Bengt Richter

Previous Next

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