On 05/12/2017 at 10:29 Ludovic Courtès writes:
> Ricardo Wurmus skribis:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès writes:
>>
>>> myglc2 skribis:
>>>
How about extending this ...
> + (warning (G_ "Your Guix installation is getting old. Consider
> +running 'guix pull' followed by '~a' to get
Ricardo Wurmus skribis:
> Ludovic Courtès writes:
>
>> myglc2 skribis:
>>
>>> How about extending this ...
>>>
+ (warning (G_ "Your Guix installation is getting old. Consider
+running 'guix pull' followed by '~a' to get up-to-date
+packages and security updates.\n")
>>>
>>>
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> myglc2 skribis:
>
>> How about extending this ...
>>
>>> + (warning (G_ "Your Guix installation is getting old. Consider
>>> +running 'guix pull' followed by '~a' to get up-to-date
>>> +packages and security updates.\n")
>>
>> ... to inform the user how old the i
myglc2 skribis:
> How about extending this ...
>
>> + (warning (G_ "Your Guix installation is getting old. Consider
>> +running 'guix pull' followed by '~a' to get up-to-date
>> +packages and security updates.\n")
>
> ... to inform the user how old the installation is?
Good idea. I did t
On 05/10/2017 at 15:12 Ludovic Courtès writes:
> Hi there,
>
> Mark H Weaver skribis:
>
>> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>>
>>> Mark H Weaver skribis:
>>>
We could simply issue a warning if the version of guix currently in use
is more than N hours old, on the assumption that a
Hi there,
Mark H Weaver skribis:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Mark H Weaver skribis:
>>
>>> We could simply issue a warning if the version of guix currently in use
>>> is more than N hours old, on the assumption that after N hours it's
>>> likely to be stale. The default value
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Mark H Weaver skribis:
>
>> We could simply issue a warning if the version of guix currently in use
>> is more than N hours old, on the assumption that after N hours it's
>> likely to be stale. The default value of N might be in the range 48-96
>> (2-4 da
Tomáš Čech skribis:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 11:58:12AM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>Tomáš Čech skribis:
>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 05:22:15PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 09:58:48PM +0100, Tomáš Čech wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:51:18PM -0500, Leo Fa
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 11:58:12AM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Tomáš Čech skribis:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 05:22:15PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 09:58:48PM +0100, Tomáš Čech wrote:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:51:18PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
> This will take effect
Tomáš Čech skribis:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 05:22:15PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
>>On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 09:58:48PM +0100, Tomáš Čech wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:51:18PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
>>> > This will take effect for the next release of Guix; it addresses a
>>> > proble
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 01:15:37PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 10:24:19AM +0100, Tomáš Čech wrote:
> > Thank you for your explanation and your patience. I finally understand
> > now what you mean with binary installation and understand how it
> > doesn't break it.
>
> Than
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 10:24:19AM +0100, Tomáš Čech wrote:
> Thank you for your explanation and your patience. I finally understand
> now what you mean with binary installation and understand how it
> doesn't break it.
Thank you for continuing to ask for clarification. It's important that
we revi
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 03:45:47AM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 07:25:42AM +0100, Tomáš Čech wrote:
Unless I'm missing some other commit, this won't work.
When I perform these steps:
1] ./configure && make && sudo make install (or package installation)
2] mkdir /gnu/store
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 07:25:42AM +0100, Tomáš Čech wrote:
> Unless I'm missing some other commit, this won't work.
>
> When I perform these steps:
> 1] ./configure && make && sudo make install (or package installation)
> 2] mkdir /gnu/store
> 3] attempt to start daemon will fail as there is no g
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 05:22:15PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 09:58:48PM +0100, Tomáš Čech wrote:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:51:18PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
> This will take effect for the next release of Guix; it addresses a
> problem that arises when somebody install
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 09:58:48PM +0100, Tomáš Čech wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:51:18PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
> > This will take effect for the next release of Guix; it addresses a
> > problem that arises when somebody installs the binary release of Guix.
> >
> > I'm not addressing d
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:51:18PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 07:33:30AM +0100, Tomáš Čech wrote:
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 04:34:34PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 10:12:21PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> > Leo Famulari skribis:
> >
> > > In my op
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 07:33:30AM +0100, Tomáš Čech wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 04:34:34PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 10:12:21PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> > > Leo Famulari skribis:
> > >
> > > > In my opinion, the recent bug #25775 (Can't install packages a
Mark H Weaver skribis:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Leo Famulari skribis:
>>
>>> In my opinion, the recent bug #25775 (Can't install packages after guix
>>> pull) [0] exposed a sort of meta-bug: there are a significant number of
>>> users who were still using the guix-daemon fro
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Leo Famulari skribis:
>
>> In my opinion, the recent bug #25775 (Can't install packages after guix
>> pull) [0] exposed a sort of meta-bug: there are a significant number of
>> users who were still using the guix-daemon from 0.10.0.
>>
>> It seems unlikely
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 03:52:07PM +0100, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
> > Removing the surprise can be […] by […] making `guix pull' able to update
> > guix-daemon as well.
>
> That’s what is planned for “guix pull” anyway IIRC. I suspect this
> would be easier if we had a daemon written in Guile.
Thi
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 04:34:34PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 10:12:21PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Leo Famulari skribis:
> In my opinion, the recent bug #25775 (Can't install packages after guix
> pull) [0] exposed a sort of meta-bug: there are a significant number
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 10:12:21PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Leo Famulari skribis:
>
> > In my opinion, the recent bug #25775 (Can't install packages after guix
> > pull) [0] exposed a sort of meta-bug: there are a significant number of
> > users who were still using the guix-daemon from 0.
Leo Famulari skribis:
> In my opinion, the recent bug #25775 (Can't install packages after guix
> pull) [0] exposed a sort of meta-bug: there are a significant number of
> users who were still using the guix-daemon from 0.10.0.
>
> It seems unlikely that they have been updating all of root's
> pa
Tomáš Čech writes:
> My expectation is that when `guix pull' is run, it should update whole
> guix, not just part (guix - guix-daemon).
[…]
> Removing the surprise can be […] by […] making `guix pull' able to update
> guix-daemon as well.
That’s what is planned for “guix pull” anyway IIRC. I
On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 09:25:11AM +, Pjotr Prins wrote:
On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 08:56:41AM +0100, Tomáš Čech wrote:
And IMHO the best and also "Guix way" could be making guix-daemon aware of
possible newer versions in /gnu/store and execing them instead...
Giving a loud warning should rea
On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 08:56:41AM +0100, Tomáš Čech wrote:
> And IMHO the best and also "Guix way" could be making guix-daemon aware of
> possible newer versions in /gnu/store and execing them instead...
Giving a loud warning should really be sufficient. The Guix way is to
have a system not surpr
On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 05:43:59PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 09:29:41PM +0100, Tomáš Čech wrote:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 04:11:56PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
> In my opinion, the recent bug #25775 (Can't install packages after guix
> pull) [0] exposed a sort of meta-bug
On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 09:29:41PM +0100, Tomáš Čech wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 04:11:56PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
> > In my opinion, the recent bug #25775 (Can't install packages after guix
> > pull) [0] exposed a sort of meta-bug: there are a significant number of
> > users who were stil
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 04:11:56PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
In my opinion, the recent bug #25775 (Can't install packages after guix
pull) [0] exposed a sort of meta-bug: there are a significant number of
users who were still using the guix-daemon from 0.10.0.
It seems unlikely that they have b
Yes, I agree with both of you.
I'd like to see a section in the documentation, referenced from the
installation instructions, with prescriptions about keeping Guix(SD) up to
date. Say "Keeping a Guix(SD) system up to date". It could have, for example,
what to do as a root user, what to do as a
We can make package 'daemon' aware if we provide the meta data in
channels, see 22...@debbugs.gnu.org. guix package could also suggest
upgrading with even numbers. Say running 0.12 guix on 0.10
guix-daemon.
In my opinion, the recent bug #25775 (Can't install packages after guix
pull) [0] exposed a sort of meta-bug: there are a significant number of
users who were still using the guix-daemon from 0.10.0.
It seems unlikely that they have been updating all of root's
packages except for the guix package.
33 matches
Mail list logo
