From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Sep 08 07:15:49 2022 Received: (at 57559) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Sep 2022 11:15:49 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57369 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oWFVd-0002QP-6p for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 08 Sep 2022 07:15:49 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f49.google.com ([209.85.221.49]:39898) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oWFVa-0002Q9-Da for 57559@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 08 Sep 2022 07:15:48 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f49.google.com with SMTP id n12so1560855wru.6 for <57559@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 08 Sep 2022 04:15:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=1iFc7x1C7Ix9Jsi/BlhXN+lVw671d8wVdqGcIIbGfA4=; b=cdPHoN0/apzKSjXxyUAAV6zNpTaXEVkHc0EwNpmVXKNeRiIotEA0B4kPS6Tclx/00J Kve2TmARsJUxjS500r5pZJsxkBbd8yZoLqNfQ6df0hjay3iHzVje1t39tLWPc/5Fsm/y Q3yYN8gnfdioxIJiaU8+ZBx3bFmQ/8t3hRWYMgZrM491itWr5HqPAfaRNcrh2u8WSt7Q cxmNhMM8uMBR9u7SYe1Mz+oX/D7/qYTF6JWOBs0zxDFP4GYI3XIe7eu9jFho9YYv2kFi HOlDOK6DTIa5lDY+wA9BnSAYnTbZaJqEoQwZow11uw8FCGGEmmothy/EpefP9zYXB3jd ttMg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject :date; bh=1iFc7x1C7Ix9Jsi/BlhXN+lVw671d8wVdqGcIIbGfA4=; b=hwxXrDNfhEUghz7mZDcyGrrrhjK1D2xEr2Nk+/cTx2IfCaR7VKnH7Wd1Cr17RpCML1 S/mJRy10ySNVyaEJUyxQsZfs1KIZwMBl3HVGQnsac/oWkO3+QvvnVn1P3DYaU3Nrk6pO tTRFG8rE6quVrit38pE8khqEjBRFTNgRXqR285s5GP+Ug4QTwnjeiCFQtzroaW3jSI3x DuGopS7+MUZG63lL+V5+lIQhphCnTrAH4K8loxn2dJKqr5G5BHAVUxTOeRF9wSpF8TSt dq9hNmaqcVC4Dzj+sbOZ3+vZpnM4iw4vxMt2AOuwkDflo44zmxMhBz5Hw+BD8JzG57Wp Xr9A== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo3EFCwWyNZ8HZ2O4ceV/hUVkEC/9vcqkWSQmeafOV5htuzbVvLb Uh6U10UbRD+rHewV3rrW6mh2Fkwsh/o= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR5IfMrkm8rhBO09JESMh3MijfQuT50qoRnHmO0SvFfaaNAtGBMUsQWP3HntKUxctYXNgatmxQ== X-Received: by 2002:adf:e38f:0:b0:228:68f0:4f85 with SMTP id e15-20020adfe38f000000b0022868f04f85mr4997750wrm.570.1662635740356; Thu, 08 Sep 2022 04:15:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lili ([2a01:e0a:59b:9120:65d2:2476:f637:db1e]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c23-20020a05600c0ad700b003a6896feef7sm2203432wmr.39.2022.09.08.04.15.39 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 08 Sep 2022 04:15:39 -0700 (PDT) From: zimoun To: Maxime Devos , =?utf-8?Q?Andr=C3=A9_A=2E_Gomes?= , 57559@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#57559: guix pull fails on http status code 503 In-Reply-To: References: <86wnagzm1v.fsf@gmail.com> <86k06exr86.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2022 13:11:47 +0200 Message-ID: <86v8pyw26k.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 57559 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Hi Maxime, On Thu, 08 Sep 2022 at 11:23, Maxime Devos wrote: > Looking at 'latest-channel-instances', the code for deciding what the > latest version is, is the same for the guix channel and any other > channel.=C2=A0 As such, the 'Guix is unavailable' is, currently, not spec= ial. Well, =E2=80=99latest-channel-instances=E2=80=99 relies on =E2=80=99latest-= channel-instance=E2=80=99 which tests =E2=80=99guix-channel?=E2=80=99, --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- (define (guix-channel? channel) "Return true if CHANNEL is the 'guix' channel." (eq? 'guix (channel-name channel))) --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- then, for instance, the occurrences are: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- 12 candidates: ./guix/channels.scm:79: guix-channel? ./guix/channels.scm:192:(define (guix-channel? channel) ./guix/channels.scm:199: (if (and (guix-channel? chan) ./guix/channels.scm:424: (when (guix-channel? channel) ./guix/channels.scm:437: (when (guix-channel? channel) ./guix/channels.scm:778: (guix-channel? (channel-instance-channe= l instance))) ./guix/channels.scm:903: (item (if (guix-channel? channel) ./guix/scripts/pull.scm:775: (match (find guix-channel? channels) ./guix/scripts/pull.scm:788: (remove guix-channel? channe= ls)))) ./gnu/packages/package-management.scm:125: g= uix-channel? ./gnu/packages/package-management.scm:618: (delay (match (or (find guix-c= hannel? (current-channels)) ./gnu/ci.scm:478: (find guix-channel? channels)) --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- And my point is that the Guix channel is special when pulling. Therefore, we could split the cases when the Guix channel is unreachable and when other extra-channels are unreachable; because the impact are different, IMHO. As I pointed earlier in the thread, the main issue is when these extra channels are unreachable; as Andr=C3=A9 have initially reported. Cheers, simon