bug#63921: Activation snippets in reverse order, prevent boot

Hello, Felix Lechner writes: > Hi, > > A patch to resolve this issue was proposed at the other bug > > https://issues.guix.gnu.org/64106#5 Brian's patch in https://issues.guix.gnu.org/64106#7 was installed; it came with tests and also cause an error to be raised when attempting to modify a ph

bug#63921: Activation snippets in reverse order, prevent boot

David Wilson has described a way to fix this bug in Guix Regards, Florian

bug#63921: Activation snippets in reverse order, prevent boot

Jelle is right, multiple (delete mingetty-service-type) is not useful. With more thought, what I imagined as more explicit is probably more like (delete "term-tty2") than (delete mingetty-service-type). Also I wouldn’t actually need it. And as Brian says, just use filter. modify-services need no

bug#63921: Activation snippets in reverse order, prevent boot

Jelle Licht writes: Thanks for the workaround! Is this "thou shall delete N times, and _exactly_ N times" effect of the recently pushed change functioning as intended? It imho seems pretty brittle and verbose compared to how things were before. We could add a ‘delete-all’ in addition to

bug#63921: Activation snippets in reverse order, prevent boot

"pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" writes: > Hi Ludo, hi all. > [snip] > The following works for me now … > > (modify-services %base-services > (delete login-service-type) > (delete mingetty-service-type) > (delete mingetty-service-type) >

bug#63921: Activation snippets in reverse order, prevent boot

"pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" writes: > "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" writes: >> Using clauses at most once broke the greetd example in the manual: > Jelle Licht already reported this on IRC, see the end of > Cc Jelle Licht

bug#63921: Activation snippets in reverse order, prevent boot

"pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" writes: > Using clauses at most once broke the greetd example in the manual: Jelle Licht already reported this on IRC, see the end of Regards, Florian

bug#63921: Activation snippets in reverse order, prevent boot

Hi Ludo, hi all. Ludovic Courtès writes: > I ended up > rewriting ‘modify-services’. Good news is we now have tests for this. In the rewrite, you wrote: > +(define (apply-clauses clauses services) > + "Apply CLAUSES, an alist as returned by 'clause-alist', to SERVICES, a list > +of services.

bug#63921: Activation snippets in reverse order, prevent boot

Ludovic Courtès skribis: > Booting a system reconfigured from > eed55a6544d5bda2245ec853e5fa4b28e1865bea fails with shepherd saying: > > error: while opening socket '/var/run/shepherd/socket': Address already in > use > > The root cause appears to be that the ‘boot’ program has expressions > r

bug#63921: Activation snippets in reverse order, prevent boot

Booting a system reconfigured from eed55a6544d5bda2245ec853e5fa4b28e1865bea fails with shepherd saying: error: while opening socket '/var/run/shepherd/socket': Address already in use The root cause appears to be that the ‘boot’ program has expressions reversed: --8<---cut here-