'guix upgrade' misdiagnoses upgrades in the presence of propagated inputs

on my guix installation (on an Ubuntu system but that detail should not

matter)

after running

%guix pull && guix package -u

these were printed:

----

...

New in this revision:

...

hint: Run `guix pull --news' to view the complete list of package changes.

hint: After setting `PATH', run `hash guix' to make sure your shell refers

to `/home/.../.config/guix/current/bin/guix'.

guix package: warning: Consider running 'guix pull' followed by

'guix package -u' to get up-to-date packages and security updates.

The following packages will be upgraded:

glibc-locales 2.28 → 2.28

/gnu/store/acl2wxzzkkcjv74rlqswdf9p8pwddlmk-glibc-locales-2.28

meson 0.50.0 → 0.50.0

/gnu/store/zc6r8b1rx3q7lqd8kvvpnm38ky925kmj-meson-0.50.0

guile 2.2.4 → 2.2.4

/gnu/store/9alic3caqhay3h8mx4iihpmyj6ymqpcx-guile-2.2.4

font-adobe-source-han-sans:cn 1.004 → 1.004

/gnu/store/zf59mg6g0afay9458aarh0rqcz852hhb-font-adobe-source-han-sans-1.004-cn

fontconfig 2.13.1 → 2.13.1

/gnu/store/cnafj0dn09qzy23xnrrjsq5zcdj4739j-fontconfig-2.13.1

epiphany 3.28.3.1 → 3.28.3.1

/gnu/store/n56bdjhqgq7a4a6ndqc3aymyrzvs12hl-epiphany-3.28.3.1

gnome-terminal 3.28.2 → 3.28.2

/gnu/store/r6i61wji0qmv9fqdyk65kx73nzxw8v80-gnome-terminal-3.28.2

nothing to be done

----

Now there seems nothing to be done during the guix package -u step so these

messages

glibc-locales 2.28 → 2.28...

were confusing and probably not necessary?

Hi Andy,

Andy Tai <atai@atai.org> skribis:

You should follow this advice, which would address this warning:

:-)

This is a bug where the presence of propagated inputs leads ‘guix

upgrade’ to assume something would be upgraded, even when that’s not the

case. This can be reproduced with:

guix install -p foo guile

guix upgrade -p foo

I’ll see what can be done.

Thanks for reporting it,

Ludo’.

retitle 35872 'guix upgrade' misdiagnoses upgrades in the presence of propagated inputs

quit

severity 35872 important

quit

Hi,

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> skribis:

With commit 3e5ab0a7a9399bb098b9ced46bf3cbf4085c6bab, ‘guix upgrade’

writes “(dependencies changed)” instead of “2.28 → 2.28”, which should

already be less confusing.

Ludo’.

Great, thanks. Minor thing but good for end user experience.

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 10:20 AM Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

--

Andy Tai, atai@atai.org, Skype: licheng.tai, Line: andy_tai, WeChat:

andytai1010

Year 2019 ??108?

????????????

????????????

(+Cc: Efraim following our discussion on IRC.)

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> skribis:

I came up with an actual fix for that (attached), nice and clean, which

would allow ‘guix upgrade’ to correctly determine whether something is

going to be upgraded.

But then I realized that this cannot work in the presence of grafts:

first because ‘-n’ currently implies ‘--no-grafts’, so this is an apple

to orange comparison, and then because computing the output file name of

a grafted package can require building the package (grafts are “dynamic

dependencies”.)

So I’m willing to punt for now.

I wonder if there’s a UI trick we could use to avoid displaying too many

“(dependencies changed)” though.

Thoughts?

Ludo’.

Hi!

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> skribis:

I saw the light :-) and came up with a simple solution to this in commit

a357849f5b1314c2a35efeee237645b9b08c39f5. Basically, we do the complete

manifest entry comparison as in the patch I posted earlier, but we punt

if doing so would require building things (for grafts).

Anecdotal data: on my 288-item profile, “guix upgrade -n” would

previously report that 124 things need to be upgraded, and now it

reports 97 instead.

Ludo’.