On 05-09-2022 10:21, zimoun wrote: > On sam., 03 sept. 2022 at 19:27, Maxime Devos wrote: > >> * if some but not all channels are available, and there is at least >> one updated channel --> log the missing channels, and update the >> channels that_are_ available (but don't 'ignore' the missing >> channels by removing them!). > What do you mean by «but don't 'ignore' the missing channels by removing > them!»? Do you mean keep the last revision locally known for this > channel? I'm not sure what you're asking, because of the negatives. With "but don't ignore [...] by [...]", I meant that, yes. If you meant "don't ignore [...] by [...]", then no, with 'ignoring by removing', I meant, literally removing them.  More concretely, a situation like this: * In the channels.scm, two channels are declared: guix and guix-foo. * User does "guix pull"; Guix downloads the source code of guix and guix-foo. * Downloading guix failed (503).  As such, Guix decided to ignore the guix channel, by removing it from the list of channels to build. (The in-memory list I mean, I don't mean modifying the channels.smc file) * Guix tries building the guix-foo channel and installing it, without the guix channel. * This cannot work (the guix-foo channel uses modules from guix for basic stuff like G-exps, packages, coreutils, ..., and it was the removed guix channel that had things build-aux/build-self.scm which is required for pulling). (It's not unlike double negatives! I first thought of the latter interpretation but on second thought you might have meant the former.) Greetings, Maxime.