On 2025-06-16, Simon Tournier wrote: > IMHO, the next actions are: > > a) Replace this message: > > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > (message (format #f "You found a bug: the program '~a' > failed to compute the derivation for Guix (version: ~s; system: ~s; > host version: ~s; pull-version: ~s). > Please report the COMPLETE output above by email to <~a>.~%" > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > > by something like: “sorry, could you try again guix pull --commit=~s > and report if it fails again.” > > > b) Put here and there some logging [2] information. Patch#68946 [2] > provides logging facilities but is missing concrete user. > > It could be worth to have it. So then, once “guix pull” fails, we > could ask to re-run “guix pull --commit=<target> --log-level=debug”. > > This would help in having some information at failure time instead > of asking them after. > > Moreover, it would provide information in order to diagnose all > these transient errors and see if they could be catched up instead > of erroring. > > WDYT?
Sounds good to me... On the other hand, if not too expensive, maybe it could *always* log debug information to files so it would not need to be re-run to get the debugging information? the logs might need to be garbage-collected somehow to avoid infinite growth... Maybe the "please try again" message could also suggest --log-level=debug as well, so if it triggered again, you would not need to run it a third time? live well, vagrant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
