GNU bug report logs -
#56289
"guix shell -f guix2.scm" fails always
Previous Next
To reply to this bug, email your comments to 56289 AT debbugs.gnu.org.
Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.
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):
[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):
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):
[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):
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):
[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):
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.