Hi Simon,
zimoun <zimon.touto...@gmail.com> writes:
> Hi Tobias,
>
> On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 22:32, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <m...@tobias.gr> wrote:
>> zimoun 写道：
>>> This bug [1] had not been commented since the last 3 years and it has
>>> been asked more info 3 weeks ago.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> We should decide whether ‘’ is a valid sexp (oh dear, philosophy) or throw
>> something softer at people.
>>
>>> 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?
>
> This bug [1] had been initially opened on March, 3rd 2017 then commented
> for the first time [2] on May, 3rd 2020 and closed [3] on May, 25th
> 2020. Then reopen the same day [4] with this “philosophical” question
> about: is empty ’’ a valid sexp? On May, 26th 2020 [5], I provided more
> examples.
>
>>From my understanding, «throw something softer» should be done on the
> Guile side, as suggested by [6] on September, 13rd 2020.
>
> Personally, I do not see what could be the next action [7]? Therefore,
> if no more explanations about what the issue really is and what be the
> plan to fix it, I will close it. WDYT?
What happens:
# mv /etc/guix/machines.scm{,.bak}
$ guix build hello --no-substitutes
-> Download sources and builds locally. OK!
# touch /etc/guix/machines.scm
$ guix build hello --no-substitutes
-> Builds locally. OK!
Seems the original issue has been resolved since.
Closing.
Maxim
