GNU bug report logs - #56289
"guix shell -f guix2.scm" fails always

Previous Next

Package: guix;

Reported by: Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>

Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2022 20:48:02 UTC

Severity: normal

To reply to this bug, email your comments to 56289 AT debbugs.gnu.org.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox


Report forwarded to bug-guix <at> gnu.org:
bug#56289; Package guix. (Tue, 28 Jun 2022 20:48:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to bug-guix <at> gnu.org. (Tue, 28 Jun 2022 20:48:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>
To: bug-guix <at> gnu.org
Subject: "guix shell -f guix2.scm" fails always
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2022 22:47:29 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Put the folllowing in "oops-guix.scm":

(use-modules (gnu packages))
(specifications->packages '("hello"))

then do: "guix shell -f oops-guix.scm" to make an environment
with "hello".  I get:

> guix shell: warning: no packages specified; creating an empty environment
$ which hello
> /home/regulator/.guix-profile/bin/hello # <-- not from the new environment!

Or even simpler: do "guix shell -f non-existing-file.scm":
> guix shell: warning: no packages specified; creating an empty environment

Looks like "-f" is ignored entirely?

Version information:
$ guix --version
guix (GNU Guix) 0

(Didn't there use to be a commit?  Is confirmed on #guix as
reproducible ...)

Greetings,
Maxime.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to bug-guix <at> gnu.org:
bug#56289; Package guix. (Wed, 29 Jun 2022 06:20:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #8 received at 56289 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> ist.tugraz.at>
To: Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>, 56289 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: "guix shell -f guix2.scm" fails always
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 08:19:30 +0200
Am Dienstag, dem 28.06.2022 um 22:47 +0200 schrieb Maxime Devos:
> Put the folllowing in "oops-guix.scm":
> 
> (use-modules (gnu packages))
> (specifications->packages '("hello"))
> 
> then do: "guix shell -f oops-guix.scm" to make an environment
> with "hello".  I get:
> 
> > guix shell: warning: no packages specified; creating an empty
> > environment
> $ which hello
> > /home/regulator/.guix-profile/bin/hello # <-- not from the new
> > environment!
> 
> Or even simpler: do "guix shell -f non-existing-file.scm":
> > guix shell: warning: no packages specified; creating an empty
> > environment
> 
> Looks like "-f" is ignored entirely?
Have you tried specifying a file that actually contains a package (not
a manifest)?  That being said, the error reporting could be better :)





Information forwarded to bug-guix <at> gnu.org:
bug#56289; Package guix. (Wed, 29 Jun 2022 09:11:01 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #11 received at 56289 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>
To: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> ist.tugraz.at>, 
 56289 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: "guix shell -f guix2.scm" fails always
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 11:10:32 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Liliana Marie Prikler schreef op wo 29-06-2022 om 08:19 [+0200]:
> > Looks like "-f" is ignored entirely?
> Have you tried specifying a file that actually contains a package
> (not
> a manifest)?

None of the examples contain a manifest, oops-guix.scm actually
contains a list of packages as mentioned previously (*).  And the exact
same thing happens if a package is used instead of a list of packages.

(*):

> > Put the folllowing in "oops-guix.scm":
> > 
> > (use-modules (gnu packages))
> > (specifications->packages '("hello"))

Greetings,
Maxime.
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to bug-guix <at> gnu.org:
bug#56289; Package guix. (Wed, 29 Jun 2022 09:24:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #14 received at 56289 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> ist.tugraz.at>
To: Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>, 56289 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: "guix shell -f guix2.scm" fails always
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 11:22:57 +0200
Am Mittwoch, dem 29.06.2022 um 11:10 +0200 schrieb Maxime Devos:
> Liliana Marie Prikler schreef op wo 29-06-2022 om 08:19 [+0200]:
> > > Looks like "-f" is ignored entirely?
> > Have you tried specifying a file that actually contains a package
> > (not a manifest)?
> 
> None of the examples contain a manifest, oops-guix.scm actually
> contains a list of packages as mentioned previously (*).
My bad, I read that as specifications->manifest.  Note that for
specifications->package, you could simply specify hello on the command
line.

Having tested your file now, I can say that guix shell builds hello as
expected, whereas with specifications->manifest, it produces a lovely
backtrace (which is more or less what one ought to expect).

> And the exact same thing happens if a package is used instead of a
> list of packages.
One thing to check here is whether a cache might be interfering.  I
think it is an already known bug, that the file itself is not key in
the cache, which you can work around by specifying --rebuild-cache.

Cheers




Information forwarded to bug-guix <at> gnu.org:
bug#56289; Package guix. (Wed, 29 Jun 2022 09:41:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #17 received at 56289 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>
To: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> ist.tugraz.at>, 
 56289 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: "guix shell -f guix2.scm" fails always
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 11:40:26 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Liliana Marie Prikler schreef op wo 29-06-2022 om 11:22 [+0200]:
> > And the exact same thing happens if a package is used instead of a
> > list of packages.
> One thing to check here is whether a cache might be interfering.  I
> think it is an already known bug, that the file itself is not key in
> the cache, which you can work around by specifying --rebuild-cache.

Whatever non-existent file name I use, I don't get an error message but
the warning ‘guix shell: warning: no packages specified; creating an
empty environment’, so this doesn't look like a cache issue to me.

However, if I do:

$ LANGUAGE=en_US guix shell --rebuild-cache -f nn-fefefefexistent.scm
guix shell: error: failed to load 'nn-fefefefexistent.scm': No such file or directory

$ LANGUAGE=en_US guix shell --rebuild-cache -f nn-fefefefexistent.scm
guix shell: error: failed to load 'nn-fefefefexistent.scm': No such file or directory

$ LANGUAGE=en_US guix shell --rebuild-cache -f mm-fefefefexistent.scm 
guix shell: error: failed to load 'mm-fefefefexistent.scm': No such file or directory

$ LANGUAGE=en_US guix shell -f mm-fefefefexistent.scm
guix shell: error: failed to load 'mm-fefefefexistent.scm': No such file or directory

so looks like there's a cache issue!

Greetings,
Maxime.


 * 
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to bug-guix <at> gnu.org:
bug#56289; Package guix. (Wed, 29 Jun 2022 09:50:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #20 received at 56289 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> ist.tugraz.at>
To: Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>, 56289 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: "guix shell -f guix2.scm" fails always
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 11:49:03 +0200
Am Mittwoch, dem 29.06.2022 um 11:40 +0200 schrieb Maxime Devos:
> Liliana Marie Prikler schreef op wo 29-06-2022 om 11:22 [+0200]:
> > > And the exact same thing happens if a package is used instead of
> > > a list of packages.
> > One thing to check here is whether a cache might be interfering.  I
> > think it is an already known bug, that the file itself is not key
> > in the cache, which you can work around by specifying --rebuild-
> > cache.
> 
> Whatever non-existent file name I use, I don't get an error message
> but the warning ‘guix shell: warning: no packages specified; creating
> an empty environment’, so this doesn't look like a cache issue to me.
That is exactly the cache issue, though.  Once ‘guix shell -f’
“succeeds” (even with an empty environment), subsequent invocations
lacking ‘--rebuild-cache’ ignore the file completely and serve from
cache.


Cheers




This bug report was last modified 2 years and 354 days ago.

Previous Next


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