offloading: empty machines file leads to error

OpenSubmitted by ng0.
Details
3 participants
  • ng0
  • Tobias Geerinckx-Rice
  • zimoun
Owner
unassigned
Severity
normal
N
(address . bug-guix@gnu.org)
20170303165648.wg5nypcizxr2n6t5@abyayala
I have misplaced my log for this, but it is easy to reproduce:
configure offloading on master and build-machine, comment the entirecontent of the file which holds the build-machines, run "guix buildhello" and see the error.
This should even work when you haven't configured offloading, just withan empty machines file.
Z
Z
zimoun wrote on 3 May 2020 18:43
Bug#25952: offloading empty machines file
CAJ3okZ2DrBGb8WCGe=utnzMEpFf=myJXAO6AuX5Y8kCGNvMDGA@mail.gmail.com
Dear,
Digging in the bug tracker, I found this bug report [1]. Could youexpand on the issue? And report the error message?
Thank you in advance.
Best regards,simon
[1] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=25952
Z
Z
zimoun wrote on 22 May 2020 02:12
tags 25952 moreinfo
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
CAJ3okZ1JJtd63tmTubSw_2D2y4uJSxvUwsLYtXCzi7N=wYYm5g@mail.gmail.com
tags 25952 moreinfothanks
Z
Z
zimoun wrote on 25 May 2020 19:12
bug#25952: offloading empty machines file
CAJ3okZ2789hrEjvDX2Tsp84tnJgTa4fGP0DR+wfsUEVKCi21bw@mail.gmail.com
Dear,
This bug [1] had not been commented since the last 3 years and it hasbeen asked more info 3 weeks ago. Therefore, I am closing. Feel freeto reopen if I misunderstand something.
[1] http://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/25952

All the best,simon
Closed
T
T
Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote on 25 May 2020 22:32
(name . zimoun)(address . zimon.toutoune@gmail.com)
87tv03ycvo.fsf@nckx
Simon,
zimoun 写道:
Toggle quote (4 lines)> This bug [1] had not been commented since the last 3 years and > it has> been asked more info 3 weeks ago.
The issue is that files such as /etc/guix/machines.scm (but this applies equally to /etc/guix/acl & so on) are expected to evaluate to a sexp.
An empty file does not a valid sexp make, so Guix throws an prickly backtrace @ your face & dies. This is unlike most other configuration formats where an empty file or one consisting entirely of comments is a no-op.
We should decide whether ‘’ is a valid sexp (oh dear, philosophy) or throw something softer at people.
Toggle quote (3 lines)> Therefore, I am closing. Feel free to reopen if I misunderstand > something.
I think this bug should remain open until it's decided. What you?
Kind regards,
T G-R
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iHUEARYKAB0WIQT12iAyS4c9C3o4dnINsP+IT1VteQUCXswrSwAKCRANsP+IT1VteXXjAQCx5MlfcTM3OO12N+85EBSGgK5re8c+ELoLFe/8AZlU3wEAjffZYlMaH0Ti9NXxZ4ykPcG7ehnK23MX4z9c67PJ/wU==SxtD-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Z
Z
zimoun wrote on 26 May 2020 00:43
(name . Tobias Geerinckx-Rice)(address . me@tobias.gr)
CAJ3okZ0G+4um-=xfq1SL7ZwiOBXzAjXvNcPR91MdfqPGz+qUBw@mail.gmail.com
Hi Tobias,
On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 22:32, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr> wrote:
Toggle quote (9 lines)> The issue is that files such as /etc/guix/machines.scm (but this> applies equally to /etc/guix/acl & so on) are expected to evaluate> to a sexp.>> An empty file does not a valid sexp make, so Guix throws an> prickly backtrace @ your face & dies. This is unlike most other> configuration formats where an empty file or one consisting> entirely of comments is a no-op.
Hum? I am not sure to get the point. Are we talking about this kindof situations, e.g.,
Toggle snippet (4 lines)touch /tmp/empty.scmguix package -m /tmp/empty.scm -p /tmp/empy
or
Toggle snippet (4 lines)echo ";; hello" > /tmp/comment.scmguix package -m /tmp/comment.scm -p /tmp/comment
or
Toggle snippet (4 lines)echo "(define x 42)" > /tmp/answer.scmguix package -m /tmp/answer.scm -p /tmp/answer
?

Toggle quote (3 lines)> We should decide whether ‘’ is a valid sexp (oh dear, philosophy)> or throw something softer at people.
Throw something more "helping" than e.g.,
Toggle snippet (10 lines)Backtrace: 1 (primitive-load "/home/simon/.config/guix/current/bin/g…")In guix/ui.scm: 1936:12 0 (run-guix-command _ . _)
guix/ui.scm:1936:12: In procedure run-guix-command:In procedure struct-vtable: Wrong type argument in position 1(expecting struct): #<unspecified>
?

Toggle quote (5 lines)> > Therefore, I am closing. Feel free to reopen if I misunderstand> > something.>> I think this bug should remain open until it's decided. What you?
Well, it is a variant of Cunningham's Law, isn't it? :-)So, let reopen it and decide on the philosophical dilemma. ;-)

Cheers,simon
Z
Z
zimoun wrote on 14 Sep 2020 19:26
(name . Tobias Geerinckx-Rice)(address . me@tobias.gr)
87k0wwqng4.fsf@gmail.com
Dear,
On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 00:43, zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> wrote:
Toggle quote (30 lines)> On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 22:32, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr> wrote:>>> The issue is that files such as /etc/guix/machines.scm (but this>> applies equally to /etc/guix/acl & so on) are expected to evaluate>> to a sexp.>>>> An empty file does not a valid sexp make, so Guix throws an>> prickly backtrace @ your face & dies. This is unlike most other>> configuration formats where an empty file or one consisting>> entirely of comments is a no-op.>> Hum? I am not sure to get the point. Are we talking about this kind> of situations, e.g.,>> touch /tmp/empty.scm> guix package -m /tmp/empty.scm -p /tmp/empy>> or>> echo ";; hello" > /tmp/comment.scm> guix package -m /tmp/comment.scm -p /tmp/comment>> or>> echo "(define x 42)" > /tmp/answer.scm> guix package -m /tmp/answer.scm -p /tmp/answer>>> ?
If we are talking about such cases, I think we can close this bugreport.

Toggle quote (16 lines)>> We should decide whether ‘’ is a valid sexp (oh dear, philosophy)>> or throw something softer at people.>> Throw something more "helping" than e.g.,>> Backtrace:> 1 (primitive-load "/home/simon/.config/guix/current/bin/g…")> In guix/ui.scm:> 1936:12 0 (run-guix-command _ . _)>> guix/ui.scm:1936:12: In procedure run-guix-command:> In procedure struct-vtable: Wrong type argument in position 1> (expecting struct): #<unspecified>>> ?
More helping as suggested for example in this message:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2020-09/msg00125.html
If yes, the bug report should be renamed. And probably goes to theGuile bug tracker. :-)

All the best,simon
?