offloading: empty machines file leads to error

  • Done
  • quality assurance status badge
Details
4 participants
  • ng0
  • Maxim Cournoyer
  • Tobias Geerinckx-Rice
  • zimoun
Owner
unassigned
Submitted by
ng0
Severity
normal
N
N
ng0 wrote on 3 Mar 2017 17:56
(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 entire
content of the file which holds the build-machines, run "guix build
hello" and see the error.

This should even work when you haven't configured offloading, just with
an 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 you
expand on the issue? And report the error message?

Thank you in advance.

Best regards,
simon

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 moreinfo
thanks
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 has
been asked more info 3 weeks ago. Therefore, I am closing. Feel free
to reopen if I misunderstand something.



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 ???
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+IT1Vt
eXXjAQCx5MlfcTM3OO12N+85EBSGgK5re8c+ELoLFe/8AZlU3wEAjffZYlMaH0Ti
9NXxZ4ykPcG7ehnK23MX4z9c67PJ/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 kind
of situations, e.g.,

Toggle snippet (4 lines)
touch /tmp/empty.scm
guix package -m /tmp/empty.scm -p /tmp/empy

or

Toggle snippet (4 lines)
echo ";; hello" > /tmp/comment.scm
guix package -m /tmp/comment.scm -p /tmp/comment

or

Toggle snippet (4 lines)
echo "(define x 42)" > /tmp/answer.scm
guix 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 bug
report.


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:


If yes, the bug report should be renamed. And probably goes to the
Guile bug tracker. :-)


All the best,
simon
Z
Z
zimoun wrote on 5 Jul 2021 13:07
Re: bug#25952: offloading: empty machines file leads to error
(name . Tobias Geerinckx-Rice)(address . me@tobias.gr)
87wnq5j9ye.fsf_-_@gmail.com
Hi,


On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 at 19:26, zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> wrote:
Toggle quote (59 lines)
> On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 00:43, zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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 bug
> report.
>
>
>>> 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 the
> Guile bug tracker. :-)


What do we do? What is the next action? Close? If not, please provide
explanations about what the issue really is and what could be the plan
to fix it. :-)

Cheers,
simon
Z
Z
zimoun wrote on 13 Jul 2021 10:11
Re: bug#25952: offloading empty machines file
(name . Tobias Geerinckx-Rice)(address . me@tobias.gr)
86bl76pr9p.fsf@gmail.com
Hi Tobias,

On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 22:32, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr> wrote:
Toggle quote (18 lines)
> zimoun ???
>> 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.
>
>> 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?

This bug [1] had been initially opened on March, 3rd 2017 then commented
for the first time [2] on May, 3rd 2020 and closed [3] on May, 25th
2020. Then reopen the same day [4] with this “philosophical” question
about: is empty ’’ a valid sexp? On May, 26th 2020 [5], I provided more
examples.

From my understanding, «throw something softer» should be done on the
Guile side, as suggested by [6] on September, 13rd 2020.

Personally, I do not see what could be the next action [7]? Therefore,
if no more explanations about what the issue really is and what be the
plan to fix it, I will close it. WDYT?

All the best,
simon

M
M
Maxim Cournoyer wrote on 18 Aug 2021 03:24
Re: bug#25952: offloading: empty machines file leads to error
(name . zimoun)(address . zimon.toutoune@gmail.com)
87a6lfy278.fsf_-_@gmail.com
Hi Simon,

zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:

Toggle quote (34 lines)
> Hi Tobias,
>
> On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 22:32, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr> wrote:
>> zimoun ???
>>> 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.
>>
>>> 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?
>
> This bug [1] had been initially opened on March, 3rd 2017 then commented
> for the first time [2] on May, 3rd 2020 and closed [3] on May, 25th
> 2020. Then reopen the same day [4] with this “philosophical” question
> about: is empty ’’ a valid sexp? On May, 26th 2020 [5], I provided more
> examples.
>
>>From my understanding, «throw something softer» should be done on the
> Guile side, as suggested by [6] on September, 13rd 2020.
>
> Personally, I do not see what could be the next action [7]? Therefore,
> if no more explanations about what the issue really is and what be the
> plan to fix it, I will close it. WDYT?

What happens:

# mv /etc/guix/machines.scm{,.bak}

$ guix build hello --no-substitutes

-> Download sources and builds locally. OK!

# touch /etc/guix/machines.scm

$ guix build hello --no-substitutes

-> Builds locally. OK!

Seems the original issue has been resolved since.

Closing.

Maxim
Closed
?
Your comment

This issue is archived.

To comment on this conversation send an email to 25952@debbugs.gnu.org

To respond to this issue using the mumi CLI, first switch to it
mumi current 25952
Then, you may apply the latest patchset in this issue (with sign off)
mumi am -- -s
Or, compose a reply to this issue
mumi compose
Or, send patches to this issue
mumi send-email *.patch