GNU bug report logs - #25952
offloading: empty machines file leads to error

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 25952 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 25952 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ng0 <contact.ng0 <at> cryptolab.net>
To: bug-guix <at> gnu.org
Subject: offloading: empty machines file leads to error
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 16:56:48 +0000

I have misplaced my log for this, but it is easy to reproduce:

configure offloading on master and build-machine, comment the entire
content of the file which holds the build-machines, run "guix build
hello" and see the error.

This should even work when you haven't configured offloading, just with
an empty machines file.

Message #8 received at 25952 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: contact.ng0 <at> cryptolab.net, 25952 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Bug#25952: offloading empty machines file
Date: Sun, 3 May 2020 18:43:43 +0200

Dear,

Digging in the bug tracker, I found this bug report [1].  Could you
expand on the issue? And report the error message?

Thank you in advance.

Best regards,
simon

[1] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=25952

Message #15 received at 25952-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: 25952-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, contact.ng0 <at> cryptolab.net
Subject: bug#25952: offloading empty machines file
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 19:12:35 +0200

Dear,

This bug [1] had not been commented since the last 3 years and it has
been asked more info 3 weeks ago.  Therefore, I am closing.  Feel free
to reopen if I misunderstand something.

[1] http://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/25952


All the best,
simon

Message #18 received at 25952 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>
To: zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 25952 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, contact.ng0 <at> cryptolab.net
Subject: Re: bug#25952: offloading empty machines file
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 22:32:11 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Simon,

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?

Kind regards,

T G-R

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #23 received at 25952 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>
Cc: 25952 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, contact.ng0 <at> cryptolab.net
Subject: Re: bug#25952: offloading empty machines file
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 00:43:33 +0200

Hi Tobias,

On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 22:32, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> 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.,

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
touch /tmp/empty.scm
guix package -m /tmp/empty.scm -p /tmp/empy
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

or

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
echo ";; hello" > /tmp/comment.scm
guix package -m /tmp/comment.scm -p /tmp/comment
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

or

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
echo "(define x 42)" > /tmp/answer.scm
guix package -m /tmp/answer.scm -p /tmp/answer
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

?


> We should decide whether ‘’ is a valid sexp (oh dear, philosophy)
> or throw something softer at people.

Throw something more "helping" than e.g.,

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
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>
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

?


> > 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?

Well, it is a variant of Cunningham's Law, isn't it? :-)
So, let reopen it and decide on the philosophical dilemma. ;-)


Cheers,
simon

Message #26 received at 25952 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>
Cc: 25952 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, contact.ng0 <at> cryptolab.net
Subject: Re: bug#25952: offloading empty machines file
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 19:26:35 +0200

Dear,

On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 00:43, zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 22:32, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> 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

Message #29 received at 25952 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>
Cc: 25952 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, contact.ng0 <at> cryptolab.net
Subject: Re: bug#25952: offloading: empty machines file leads to error
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2021 13:07:05 +0200

Hi,

For reference: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/25952>.

On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 at 19:26, zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 00:43, zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 22:32, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> 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. :-)


What do we do?  What is the next action?  Close?  If not, please provide
explanations about what the issue really is and what could be the plan
to fix it. :-)

Cheers,
simon

Message #32 received at 25952 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>
Cc: 25952 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, contact.ng0 <at> cryptolab.net
Subject: Re: bug#25952: offloading empty machines file
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 10:11:30 +0200

Hi Tobias,

On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 22:32, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> 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?

All the best,
simon

1: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/25952#0>
2: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/25952#1>
3: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/25952#3>
4: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/25952#4>
5: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/25952#6>
6: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2020-09/msg00125.html>
7: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/25952#8>

Message #37 received at 25952-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
Cc: contact.ng0 <at> cryptolab.net, 25952-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>
Subject: Re: bug#25952: offloading: empty machines file leads to error
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2021 21:24:43 -0400

Hi Simon,

zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Hi Tobias,
>
> On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 22:32, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> 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

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.