GNU bug report logs - #63921
Activation snippets in reverse order, prevent boot

Previous Next

Package: guix;

Reported by: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>

Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2023 08:17:02 UTC

Severity: serious

Done: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #29 received at 63921 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Brian Cully <bjc <at> spork.org>
To: Jelle Licht <jlicht <at> fsfe.org>
Cc: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>, 63921 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 "pelzflorian \(Florian Pelz\)" <pelzflorian <at> pelzflorian.de>
Subject: Re: bug#63921: Activation snippets in reverse order, prevent boot
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2023 18:02:39 -0400
Jelle Licht <jlicht <at> fsfe.org> writes:

> Thanks for the workaround! Is this "thou shall delete N times, 
> and
> _exactly_ N times" effect of the recently pushed change 
> functioning as
> intended?  It imho seems pretty brittle and verbose compared to 
> how
> things were before.

We could add a ‘delete-all’ in addition to the existing ‘delete’ 
behavior. Alternately, we could change ‘delete’ back to deleting 
everything and adding ‘delete-one’. Or have both ‘delete-all’ and 
‘delete-one’ where ‘delete’ is a deprecated alias for ‘delete-all’ 
to add a path forward for older configs.

Of the three I'm most partial to the last, though I love none of 
them. I keep thinking the right solution is to have a delete that 
can match with a predicate, but then why not just use ‘filter’ or 
‘remove’?

-bjc




This bug report was last modified 1 year and 260 days ago.

Previous Next


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