Dear, On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 00:43, zimoun <zimon.touto...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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., > > touch /tmp/empty.scm > guix package -m /tmp/empty.scm -p /tmp/empy > > or > > echo ";; hello" > /tmp/comment.scm > guix package -m /tmp/comment.scm -p /tmp/comment > > or > > echo "(define x 42)" > /tmp/answer.scm > guix package -m /tmp/answer.scm -p /tmp/answer > > > ?
If we are talking about such cases, I think we can close this bug report. >> We should decide whether ‘’ is a valid sexp (oh dear, philosophy) >> or throw something softer at people. > > Throw something more "helping" than e.g., > > 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> > > ? More helping as suggested for example in this message: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2020-09/msg00125.html> If yes, the bug report should be renamed. And probably goes to the Guile bug tracker. :-) All the best, simon
