Hello Alex & Marius,
Marius Bakke <mba...@fastmail.com> skribis:
> Alex Sassmannshausen via Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix@gnu.org>
> writes:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I maintain a number of servers using Guix deploy. It seems that the
>> recent upgrade to Herd in Guix, and specifically commit
>> 4c0cc7bed3de2c0e2d3a6e95b88693941e839eec might have introduced a bug.
>>
>> From my testing, guix deploy currently consistently fails with:
>> -----------------8<----------------------------->8-------------------
>> ice-9/boot-9.scm:1667:16: In procedure raise-exception:
>> ERROR:
>> 1. &inferior-exception:
>> arguments: (srfi-34 #<inferior-object #<condition
>> &action-exception-error [service: root action: eval key:
>> keyword-argument-error args: ("#<procedure 7fe24816e240 at
>> shepherd/service.scm:903:4 (command #:key user group directory
>> environment-variables pid-file pid-file-timeout log-file) | (program .
>> program-args)>" "Unrecognized keyword" () (#:file-creation-mask))]
>> 7eff2bd7be00>>)
>> inferior: #f
>> stack: ()
>> -----------------8<----------------------------->8-------------------
>>
>> A workaround is to build the system configuration locally on the target
>> server, then to reconfigure. It will still error at the same place, but
>> at this point, after restarting the server, the new version of Herd will
>> be running and both deploy and reconfigure will work.
>>
>> I don't know what a good solution to this could be, but it may be
>> something we need to consider in future development of Herd.
>
> This issue has been reported by a number of users on IRC. I think the
> problem is that the the #:file-creation-mask keyword requires support
> from the running Shepherd, which may not have it yet. I think we should
> revert commit 4c0cc7bed3de2c0e2d3a6e95b88693941e839eec until we find a
> smooth upgrade path. Can you try it and push if that fixes guix deploy?
I’ve reverted the patch in 5aa4d2dcf2f4f8786358feb45338893ed08a4cd9.
Diego: I guess we can reinstate the patch “later”, once Shepherd 0.8 can
be considered widespread.
More importantly, we should handle service reload failures more
gracefully, as proposed in <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/30706>,
for both ‘reconfigure’ and ‘deploy’.
Thanks,
Ludo’.
