On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:51:18PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 07:33:30AM +0100, Tomáš Čech wrote:On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 04:34:34PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: > On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 10:12:21PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> skribis: > > > > > In my opinion, the recent bug #25775 (Can't install packages after guix > > > pull) [0] exposed a sort of meta-bug: there are a significant number of > > > users who were still using the guix-daemon from 0.10.0. > > > > > > It seems unlikely that they have been updating all of root's > > > packages except for the guix package. Rather, I bet they never updated > > > root's packages at all, for ~1 year. > > They could have been stuck with an old daemon if they copied the systemd > or upstart service files we provide. > > That problem should be fixed by 613d0895b92c677e0639d5e77c55043e38e020c8 > (build: Don't embed absolute paths in .service and .conf service > files.).That is right. But 1) there was no release with this "fix" 2) I (as distro package maintainer) didn't take this patch manually as it is fragile and hacky. Have you considered fresh guix installation?This will take effect for the next release of Guix; it addresses a problem that arises when somebody installs the binary release of Guix. I'm not addressing downstream packages of Guix with this commit.
I'm sorry, I may not understand correctly your answer. Are you saying that situation when user freshly installs Guix on system with systemd (and thus has empty /gnu/store)? S_W
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
