From unknown Fri Jun 20 05:29:20 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#51383 <51383@debbugs.gnu.org> To: bug#51383 <51383@debbugs.gnu.org> Subject: Status: noobie way of incorrectly using (guix records) Reply-To: bug#51383 <51383@debbugs.gnu.org> Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 12:29:20 +0000 retitle 51383 noobie way of incorrectly using (guix records)=20 reassign 51383 guix submitter 51383 Joshua Branson severity 51383 normal thanks From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Oct 25 02:16:17 2021 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Oct 2021 06:16:18 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41478 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1metHN-0002DG-Nc for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 02:16:17 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:42852) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1metHL-0002D9-NC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 02:16:16 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60232) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1metHK-0007uS-Up for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 02:16:15 -0400 Received: from mx1.dismail.de ([78.46.223.134]:2506) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1metHI-0004g3-08 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 02:16:14 -0400 Received: from mx1.dismail.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.dismail.de (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 22438b81 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 08:16:02 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=dismail.de; h=date :message-id:from:to:subject; s=20190914; bh=zOYsXI+7flYC0ZBSNcR9 5It6MdUCX7jgZ7t9gvfMKes=; b=vRxVUe3EQk1f1I4ch/I4qV0ydeIM/zNG2hOP AK6ZSkvS/L/0USIcEFVyDBuiOh+XpJ53Kf1w4UCPHFAf3BEwIKTfLG5389GrgCaG 13u2PGVq1vg4a3yCo4H3lVAqxi/khfkH8pXSoFysXCoZ1q5BiQVLgRBVwrJIKXhc /F/X87gJ52wdjKMFxY9rdWDofKoxSMYuknJ1b7zocIplzXVu1lcqxF4evNtXNv7x yt96BM+qw5vJEKfYp8Df6IYv8g6X26CS9F4ilfZX5GuLH6xn0Z2cR/FsFbPv73Wr 93qw9EWeLME6ptCW2kTXG3owOsVxo2qx2WdoD44vZcFBuf50UQ== Received: from smtp2.dismail.de ( [10.240.26.12]) by mx1.dismail.de (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 41f952ac for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 08:16:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp2.dismail.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.dismail.de (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 64dbd0da for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 08:16:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: by dismail.de (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 5f34d345 (TLSv1.3:AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256:NO) for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 08:16:01 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 02:15:54 -0400 Message-Id: <87zgqxiq91.fsf@dismail.de> From: Joshua Branson To: bug-guix@gnu.org Subject: noobie way of incorrectly using (guix records) Received-SPF: pass client-ip=78.46.223.134; envelope-from=jbranso@dismail.de; helo=mx1.dismail.de X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) 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: -2.4 (--) So I made a pretty noobie-like mistake a few minutes ago. When one tries to make a (record-configuration), he invariably create an infinite number of records. The guile compiler eventually runs out of memory and stops compiling. (use-modules (guix records)) (define-record-type* record-configuration make-record-configuration record-configuration? (command record-configuration-command ;; the error is here is on the next line (default (record-configuration)))) (record-configuration) This is not possible with (srfi sfri-9) (use-modules (srfi srfi-9)) (define-record-type (make-employee name age (make-employeee 5 5 5)) employee? (name employee-name) (age employee-age set-employee-age!) (salary employee-salary set-employee-salary!)) (make-employee) The above results in a syntax error. Is this a "feature" and not a bug? I feel like this is a trivial bug, and I am certain that other bugs are of greater importance. Thanks, Joshua From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Oct 25 03:49:08 2021 Received: (at 51383) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Oct 2021 07:49:08 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41554 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1meujE-0004Te-64 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 03:49:08 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-f54.google.com ([209.85.128.54]:45603) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1meujC-0004T9-Fv for 51383@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 03:49:07 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-f54.google.com with SMTP id 71-20020a1c014a000000b0032cafd23b1dso4622526wmb.4 for <51383@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 00:49:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=+EUzU5V5RdW/XUQOoNz0Q8fEnHodWi6fEKwMH6peseQ=; b=b4tqikgEThxtlLtBF21+4GTvvhftyDO6rMBPRFV4+aS/mW2nS3pzJDWm1F85Q5HalG ffFX7GGImEODCkOezLvLo37n5GJ1UyobFqWTOs56ioSIlN4bVM/8Qm83ZhmbW8PFy+9N DzQLzhtQk5qz3W1+fNYTXC8fhu5lvVj260DNoYymYZ5thhQ1xa4EsU6vlyAtLn04Dz+q RQliwO+somf4+CfrsRaWwNqQi/dC8R9gqK18G5yFUGuQDftYRjvIvE1yuskB1hp3qT3v rNobuhzKPle38PF601frmRS4cCyYWofGB7RcUGB+B8ELicn6Jkoa1w5WrIDQSzD49SZM gEHg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+EUzU5V5RdW/XUQOoNz0Q8fEnHodWi6fEKwMH6peseQ=; b=Tcl9ITi+ktseCqK4GLaxxW5qGnLmIXH+PKjjJtd6rh6pgY+yedy/JaZNamHCTgNhCX MWTQ9zSVOJXmDYHq7tqDH3+T4w5u4WmcjQ2kQq5S9aLqiL73mgqArYKT0l/tNYyl7V+/ 2FlZjvSHZQ36kgB6QP5XKp82XCs+t9F+TMtzyYBKJqB+Ht7TSS/dPZr2q/L4X2mWnPT6 9WSrm7FENTV1UmnNlEo+INWjOcGl0kUWOfJxFNbjQw3h+Pw3KS/7qmpUHO2m4Hsnf4c5 ZgrViVFBbz787CRR940TWcCVl+qwSPlEg0vFlHsm3P0v8hWYw/f+zA3lJthxV5YRtCPe mBFg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531I9BzDWN2jgSKD1LfostPG4IKEgFPCdr+VfkIrOzxTPcX1Wkur z1+r7niJCfkecQWNgJz4Xi69XzVkbIE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwfuSLYXi4NBX0MHR8JOwJSks+XG8O4Z2Ql6RurkBVWNpTQyJkdJTfFw4+mD0wmpWHK3jjM2A== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:4f81:: with SMTP id n1mr47271222wmq.63.1635148140457; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 00:49:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lili ([88.126.110.68]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w14sm5729560wmi.37.2021.10.25.00.48.59 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 25 Oct 2021 00:48:59 -0700 (PDT) From: zimoun To: Joshua Branson , 51383@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#51383: noobie way of incorrectly using (guix records) In-Reply-To: <87zgqxiq91.fsf@dismail.de> References: <87zgqxiq91.fsf@dismail.de> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 09:48:53 +0200 Message-ID: <864k95a6je.fsf@gmail.com> 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: 51383 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, On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 at 02:15, Joshua Branson via Bug reports for GNU Guix <= bug-guix@gnu.org> wrote: > So I made a pretty noobie-like mistake a few minutes ago. When one > tries to make a (record-configuration), he invariably create an > infinite number of records. The guile compiler eventually runs out > of memory and stops compiling. > > (use-modules (guix records)) > > (define-record-type* > record-configuration make-record-configuration > record-configuration? > (command record-configuration-command > ;; the error is here is on the next line > (default (record-configuration))))=20=20 > > (record-configuration) This is defined by creating recursively another instance. Thus, It is expected that it does not work, no? Reading the doc, 1. what do you want to achieve? 2. what does it appear to you buggy? Or what do you think the =E2=80=9Ccorrect=E2=80=9D behaviour should be? --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- (define-syntax define-record-type* (lambda (s) "Define the given record type such that an additional \"syntactic constructor\" is defined, which allows instances to be constructed with nam= ed field initializers, =C3=A0 la SRFI-35, as well as default values. An examp= le use may look like this: (define-record-type* thing make-thing thing? this-thing (name thing-name (default \"chbouib\")) (port thing-port (default (current-output-port)) (thunked)) (loc thing-location (innate) (default (current-source-location)))) This example defines a macro 'thing' that can be used to instantiate records of this type: (thing (name \"foo\") (port (current-error-port))) The value of 'name' or 'port' could as well be omitted, in which case the default value specified in the 'define-record-type*' form is used: (thing) The 'port' field is \"thunked\", meaning that calls like '(thing-port x)' w= ill actually compute the field's value in the current dynamic extent, which is useful when referring to fluids in a field's value. Furthermore, that thunk can access the record it belongs to via the 'this-thing' identifier. A field can also be marked as \"delayed\" instead of \"thunked\", in which case its value is effectively wrapped in a (delay =E2=80=A6) form. A field can also have an associated \"sanitizer\", which is a procedure that takes a user-supplied field value and returns a \"sanitized\" value for the field: (define-record-type* thing make-thing thing? this-thing (name thing-name (sanitize (lambda (value) (cond ((string? value) value) ((symbol? value) (symbol->string value)) (else (throw 'bad! value))))))) It is possible to copy an object 'x' created with 'thing' like this: (thing (inherit x) (name \"bar\")) This expression returns a new object equal to 'x' except for its 'name' field and its 'loc' field---the latter is marked as \"innate\", so it is not inherited." --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- (Argh, I do not know how to read/display the docstring from the REPL, another annoying* story. :-)) > This is not possible with (srfi sfri-9) > > (use-modules (srfi srfi-9)) > > (define-record-type > (make-employee name age (make-employeee 5 5 5)) > employee? > (name employee-name) > (age employee-age set-employee-age!) > (salary employee-salary set-employee-salary!)) Well, =E2=80=99(guix records)=E2=80=99 allows to do more than =E2=80=99(srf= i srfi-9)=E2=80=99. Aside, I am not convinced that this latter snippet is similar than the former previous one. Cheers, simon *annoying REPL, I get: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- scheme@(guix-user)> ,describe define-record-type* While executing meta-command: Syntax error: unknown file:79:10: source expression failed to match any pattern in form d= efine-record-type* --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Oct 25 05:36:57 2021 Received: (at 51383) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Oct 2021 09:36:57 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41675 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mewPY-0007aA-O6 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 05:36:57 -0400 Received: from mx1.dismail.de ([78.46.223.134]:36278) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mewPS-0007Zo-C0 for 51383@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 05:36:54 -0400 Received: from mx1.dismail.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.dismail.de (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 0f8342fd; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 11:36:43 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=dismail.de; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=20190914; bh=Knwd5RsY 1wDVvRd/yTaAh+MdoXZeQitonR1mhR5FOi8=; b=jubE3xEoU1R46Oor+s9fU/da URy+kdRVycwBNEUAfuS9ifK/VCi2KDCz/IxEgw01wpZ0jKkpjWcCzS+Ce1mqkxMp of/icKjRpJbpeSdmXxPPCHYfgT2XyqjBUDQDrN4NSo+QM5jOSHv8hBF4IMQnfw9x c89n99I9BjYXamt7ZzARvErqJtI44qFUm8eTZLD6RT/r7qncGuAewBx/YxNHMEMs u/jqFCUGA5dtRz5eOwu+JNH3vFR+J1CM44nDR56GlMUHad1JmIkyFNFiguXTZrDA DsPU94BwCc2RIVnA8gKVdYCDQ92HWMNXjvrd6Pp/cS3m4wqQz7f5SIu/y5YtqA== Received: from smtp2.dismail.de ( [10.240.26.12]) by mx1.dismail.de (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 6b4d47d2; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 11:36:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp2.dismail.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.dismail.de (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 19f1ef63; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 11:36:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: by dismail.de (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 004c2afc (TLSv1.3:AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256:NO); Mon, 25 Oct 2021 11:36:42 +0200 (CEST) From: Joshua Branson To: zimoun Subject: Re: bug#51383: noobie way of incorrectly using (guix records) References: <87zgqxiq91.fsf@dismail.de> <864k95a6je.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 05:36:39 -0400 In-Reply-To: <864k95a6je.fsf@gmail.com> (zimoun's message of "Mon, 25 Oct 2021 09:48:53 +0200") Message-ID: <87bl3dwimw.fsf@dismail.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (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: 51383 Cc: 51383@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: -1.7 (-) zimoun writes: > Hi, > > On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 at 02:15, Joshua Branson via Bug reports for GNU Guix= wrote: > >> So I made a pretty noobie-like mistake a few minutes ago. When one >> tries to make a (record-configuration), he invariably create an >> infinite number of records. The guile compiler eventually runs out >> of memory and stops compiling. >> >> (use-modules (guix records)) >> >> (define-record-type* >> record-configuration make-record-configuration >> record-configuration? >> (command record-configuration-command >> ;; the error is here is on the next line >> (default (record-configuration))))=20=20 >> >> (record-configuration) > > This is defined by creating recursively another > instance. Thus, It is expected that it does not work, no? Yes that is correct. I am only slightly annoyed at the lack of a helpful error message. Thanks for helping me clarify my point. I was working on a rather large collection of guix records for an opensmtpd service configuration. The file is about 1,000 lines long. Trying to find that error without a helpful error message was slightly annoying. I agree that the fault was mine and I do not believe the bug can be fixed. Rather it would be nice to have a more helpful error message. It could be possible that guile offers such flexibility in general that the compiler is unable to provide good error messages in all situations. I am just hoping for a better error message somewhere, ether in the compiler or something in the (define-syntax-record* macro. Is it possible to get a better error message? Is that a thing worth pursuing? Or is the fix worse than the present condition? > Reading the doc, > > 1. what do you want to achieve? > 2. what does it appear to you buggy? Or what do you think the > =E2=80=9Ccorrect=E2=80=9D behaviour should be? > > (define-syntax define-record-type* > (lambda (s) > "Define the given record type such that an additional \"syntactic > constructor\" is defined, which allows instances to be constructed with n= amed > field initializers, =C3=A0 la SRFI-35, as well as default values. An exa= mple use > may look like this: > > (define-record-type* thing make-thing > thing? > this-thing > (name thing-name (default \"chbouib\")) > (port thing-port > (default (current-output-port)) (thunked)) > (loc thing-location (innate) (default (current-source-location)))) > > This example defines a macro 'thing' that can be used to instantiate reco= rds > of this type: > > (thing > (name \"foo\") > (port (current-error-port))) > > The value of 'name' or 'port' could as well be omitted, in which case the > default value specified in the 'define-record-type*' form is used: > > (thing) > > The 'port' field is \"thunked\", meaning that calls like '(thing-port x)'= will > actually compute the field's value in the current dynamic extent, which is > useful when referring to fluids in a field's value. Furthermore, that th= unk > can access the record it belongs to via the 'this-thing' identifier. > > A field can also be marked as \"delayed\" instead of \"thunked\", in which > case its value is effectively wrapped in a (delay =E2=80=A6) form. > > A field can also have an associated \"sanitizer\", which is a procedure t= hat > takes a user-supplied field value and returns a \"sanitized\" value for t= he > field: > > (define-record-type* thing make-thing > thing? > this-thing > (name thing-name > (sanitize (lambda (value) > (cond ((string? value) value) > ((symbol? value) (symbol->string value)) > (else (throw 'bad! value))))))) > > It is possible to copy an object 'x' created with 'thing' like this: > > (thing (inherit x) (name \"bar\")) > > This expression returns a new object equal to 'x' except for its 'name' > field and its 'loc' field---the latter is marked as \"innate\", so it is = not > inherited." > > > (Argh, I do not know how to read/display the docstring from the REPL, > another annoying* story. :-)) Do you know if the above guix records are in the guix manual? If not, I'll probably add them. > >> This is not possible with (srfi sfri-9) >> >> (use-modules (srfi srfi-9)) >> >> (define-record-type >> (make-employee name age (make-employeee 5 5 5)) >> employee? >> (name employee-name) >> (age employee-age set-employee-age!) >> (salary employee-salary set-employee-salary!)) > > Well, =E2=80=99(guix records)=E2=80=99 allows to do more than =E2=80=99(s= rfi srfi-9)=E2=80=99. Amen for that! (guix records) are awesome! > Aside, I > am not convinced that this latter snippet is similar than the former > previous one. I was just trying to see if I could produce a similar issue for the guile compiler via only using (srfi srfi-9). Apparently I cannot. > Cheers, > simon > > *annoying REPL, I get: > > scheme@(guix-user)> ,describe define-record-type* > While executing meta-command: > Syntax error: > unknown file:79:10: source expression failed to match any pattern in form= define-record-type* try (use-modules (guix records))...though you probably already did that. What about ,m (guix records) ? --=20 Joshua Branson (jab in #guix) Sent from Emacs and Gnus https://gnucode.me https://video.hardlimit.com/accounts/joshua_branson/video-channels https://propernaming.org "You can have whatever you want, as long as you help enough other people get what they want." - Zig Ziglar =20=20 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Oct 25 07:22:01 2021 Received: (at 51383) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Oct 2021 11:22:01 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41736 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mey3B-0002XO-LZ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 07:22:01 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-f43.google.com ([209.85.128.43]:39697) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mey39-0002X5-T2 for 51383@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 07:21:56 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-f43.google.com with SMTP id y22-20020a1c7d16000000b003231ea3d705so12708241wmc.4 for <51383@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 04:21:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=f4QuoQZ1sgbwl0IvmR7tsexsBcAoZZ7XTdtVT/u25rM=; b=pBg8SNJyEuX5KDCC8IMLBWHzG4kaS0UdPe+jpH7ILF3J3SUQDzpE5DJsX3BcIhIU5F x8c9lDaBEzvX41gWV8BeinkxNSNNfw0DdbZ3kwipCbz2MtWdokPptF70ANONK7urm9Rg TxHmhTijqXnl6ol29I1u5bE+ZkBEykNEWW5R922/LpHc3RVGtV1keOsM3EHkYLYeI1JY lhvcDZrZ1zgm95nrzqChkfoZfbRmo4l0C6bjm676lpTHcE+ZNDCK25UBr7aAwB9zp+WQ u5bObulJEGSecBZ8mVSI6LPy5a9S1M0UHFW+9SGsXFQcR0k5bP5PSSbob2gdV5tMwRhN bKqA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=f4QuoQZ1sgbwl0IvmR7tsexsBcAoZZ7XTdtVT/u25rM=; b=ov/2NcQWuDBeWirLanNfrfppLYppnvLKE6km1j435ze6WdR8u3bHZUGEKC5PJEpRHd gO/oMO9u6Yu1wMfXv+IZtohmvtj66ctDpyy0D/YeM7gVtZXMe12tiAKUFGOwqE1JnGGs zlWVKpx1Ola9i0t1bcHNdkuRVJz2TvzwLUo7AqckXJzEZRTQDhvFKvYLCNBme+XErzkE 99sHYpkY+apaf5yuZL8CjSlbzg03uGR8Cay1oQVhMgd22Om5KAgrc5XxBB1Y3twP/XkH YX2JY5iMukhjzXQWXSKpCugk8FMt0GwRhnEBIOwkH0+jr/kk3HvD5/ELVrFKUSbCztZA tlUw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530KkR1L9bsxqQQroMRLcfzK4uMtNte3YVhAeAktwUFD0xlwk1cr G1+v4OxM7pEA7lV6t47Kqqm+l3v/Mys= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzjRPArhTy9egtoPbL6pZepdkCmcrmm1tb/jCJaOAFsK2gxBDL76QRVxgO6lKuDM9Y815fESA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:2257:: with SMTP id a23mr29205182wmm.182.1635160909898; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 04:21:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lili ([2a01:e0a:59b:9120:65d2:2476:f637:db1e]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z17sm6013982wml.15.2021.10.25.04.21.48 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 25 Oct 2021 04:21:49 -0700 (PDT) From: zimoun To: Joshua Branson Subject: Re: bug#51383: noobie way of incorrectly using (guix records) In-Reply-To: <87bl3dwimw.fsf@dismail.de> References: <87zgqxiq91.fsf@dismail.de> <864k95a6je.fsf@gmail.com> <87bl3dwimw.fsf@dismail.de> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 13:21:40 +0200 Message-ID: <86r1c973jv.fsf@gmail.com> 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: 51383 Cc: 51383@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: -1.0 (-) Hi, On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 at 05:36, Joshua Branson wrote: > Do you know if the above guix records are in the guix manual? If not, > I'll probably add them. Nothing seems documented in the manual. That=E2=80=99s why I have been gon= e to the docstring. :-) Cheers, simon From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Oct 27 14:00:58 2021 Received: (at 51383-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Oct 2021 18:00:58 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50517 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mfnEQ-0007jm-A7 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 14:00:58 -0400 Received: from mx1.dismail.de ([78.46.223.134]:30543) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mfnEN-0007jT-Rv for 51383-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 14:00:57 -0400 Received: from mx1.dismail.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.dismail.de (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id dc19648f for <51383-done@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 20:00:48 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=dismail.de; h=date :message-id:from:to; s=20190914; bh=3l8NQMfKVF9H7xmLIV68NsISzoMQ HYzVMmQDmKq5y5w=; b=ld4eWoPMKzsHbP+e9virFq6ALj6numhhLyfWdfhuOfTP jODg0hcse114d4uE061fXfNlByoEexqxjgNvbLKhP2doHCrF3yy5uop4UVZRIPKC 2Fv8Aee4VDJ411aP1DAth051q6oM57kuNkmFSRnY467nob7bgxhBWDpiUK8T0YW6 oQHWSNZWDJYojllEs23baxCNjIy4jHAuWgHqIXmrPCHS7rtjhYt4O+fJ7N79qX8l lUsWMvDn2P6lbUqIHi6yV7S7t3T1Lmlsej8bBkbK4QIthJ9pbuTsgZ3EgBaTG6Sn CSvi/vEpbFudng8dcR1Tuc8+WgUpkSMZ0gobLW+xsg== Received: from smtp2.dismail.de ( [10.240.26.12]) by mx1.dismail.de (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 0c4bdb72 for <51383-done@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 20:00:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp2.dismail.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.dismail.de (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 3b561d02 for <51383-done@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 20:00:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: by dismail.de (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 2c66b1ef (TLSv1.3:AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256:NO) for <51383-done@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 20:00:45 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 14:00:42 -0400 Message-Id: <87tuh2gxf9.fsf@dismail.de> From: Joshua Branson To: 51383-done@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: 1.3 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Bug will not be fixed. Content analysis details: (1.3 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [78.46.223.134 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 1.8 MISSING_SUBJECT Missing Subject: header 0.2 NO_SUBJECT Extra score for no subject X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 51383-done 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: 0.3 (/) Bug will not be fixed. From unknown Fri Jun 20 05:29:20 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 12:24:10 +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