Hi Tobias,
On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 22:32, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <m...@tobias.gr> wrote:
> The issue is that files such as /etc/guix/machines.scm (but this
> applies equally to /etc/guix/acl & so on) are expected to evaluate
> to a sexp.
>
> An empty file does not a valid sexp make, so Guix throws an
> prickly backtrace @ your face & dies. This is unlike most other
> configuration formats where an empty file or one consisting
> entirely of comments is a no-op.
Hum? I am not sure to get the point. Are we talking about this kind
of situations, e.g.,
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
touch /tmp/empty.scm
guix package -m /tmp/empty.scm -p /tmp/empy
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
or
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
echo ";; hello" > /tmp/comment.scm
guix package -m /tmp/comment.scm -p /tmp/comment
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
or
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
echo "(define x 42)" > /tmp/answer.scm
guix package -m /tmp/answer.scm -p /tmp/answer
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
?
> We should decide whether ‘’ is a valid sexp (oh dear, philosophy)
> or throw something softer at people.
Throw something more "helping" than e.g.,
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
Backtrace:
1 (primitive-load "/home/simon/.config/guix/current/bin/g…")
In guix/ui.scm:
1936:12 0 (run-guix-command _ . _)
guix/ui.scm:1936:12: In procedure run-guix-command:
In procedure struct-vtable: Wrong type argument in position 1
(expecting struct): #<unspecified>
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
?
> > Therefore, I am closing. Feel free to reopen if I misunderstand
> > something.
>
> I think this bug should remain open until it's decided. What you?
Well, it is a variant of Cunningham's Law, isn't it? :-)
So, let reopen it and decide on the philosophical dilemma. ;-)
Cheers,
simon
