GNU bug report logs -
#43361
[PATCH] doc: Mention config.scm in reconfigure description
Previous Next
Reported by: Julien Lepiller <julien <at> lepiller.eu>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2020 19:50:01 UTC
Severity: normal
Tags: moreinfo, patch
Done: Julien Lepiller <julien <at> lepiller.eu>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 43361 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 43361 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.
Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.
Report forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#43361
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Sat, 12 Sep 2020 19:50:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Acknowledgement sent
to
Julien Lepiller <julien <at> lepiller.eu>
:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
.
(Sat, 12 Sep 2020 19:50:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Hi Guix,
this patch is a small change to the manual that should help at least
one confused user from
https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/550597/what-is-the-file-to-be-specified-in-guix-system-reconfigure
[0001-doc-Mention-config.scm-in-reconfigure-description.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#43361
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Sun, 13 Sep 2020 12:07:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #8 received at 43361 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hello,
On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 09:48:52PM +0200, Julien Lepiller wrote:
> @item reconfigure
> -Build the operating system described in @var{file}, activate it, and
> -switch to it <at> footnote{This action (and the related actions
> -@code{switch-generation} and @code{roll-back}) are usable only on
> -systems already running Guix System.}.
> +Build the operating system described in @var{file} (typically
> +@file{/etc/config.scm}), activate it, and switch to it <at> footnote{This action
> +(and the related actions @code{switch-generation} and @code{roll-back}) are
> +usable only on systems already running Guix System.}.
to be honest, I find it less clear than before - it now almost sounds as if
providing the file were optional, and that the command might search it
as /etc/config.scm.
Andreas
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#43361
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Sun, 13 Sep 2020 21:12:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #11 received at 43361 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi,
Julien Lepiller <julien <at> lepiller.eu> skribis:
> this patch is a small change to the manual that should help at least
> one confused user from
> https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/550597/what-is-the-file-to-be-specified-in-guix-system-reconfigure
>
>>From dfa9439efbf1de7ffe281dac330a19c1e369e5d8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Julien Lepiller <julien <at> lepiller.eu>
> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2020 21:46:57 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] doc: Mention config.scm in reconfigure description
>
> * doc/guix.texi (Invoking guix system): Mention `/etc/config.scm' in the
> description of guix system reconfigure.
> ---
> doc/guix.texi | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/doc/guix.texi b/doc/guix.texi
> index a6e14ea177..c10387441e 100644
> --- a/doc/guix.texi
> +++ b/doc/guix.texi
> @@ -28919,10 +28919,10 @@ As for @command{guix package --search}, the result is written in
> (@pxref{Top, GNU recutils databases,, recutils, GNU recutils manual}).
>
> @item reconfigure
> -Build the operating system described in @var{file}, activate it, and
> -switch to it <at> footnote{This action (and the related actions
> -@code{switch-generation} and @code{roll-back}) are usable only on
> -systems already running Guix System.}.
> +Build the operating system described in @var{file} (typically
> +@file{/etc/config.scm}), activate it, and switch to it <at> footnote{This action
> +(and the related actions @code{switch-generation} and @code{roll-back}) are
> +usable only on systems already running Guix System.}.
Perhaps “(typically @file{/etc/config.scm})” should go next to
“@var{file} must be …”?
But if the person doesn’t read more than a few lines of the page, it
won’t help.
I was thinking we could have “guix system reconfigure” without arguments
pick up /run/current-system/configuration.scm. Perhaps that’d help?
Thanks,
Ludo’.
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#43361
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Sun, 13 Sep 2020 23:52:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #14 received at 43361 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Le 13 septembre 2020 17:10:30 GMT-04:00, "Ludovic Courtès" <ludo <at> gnu.org> a écrit :
>Hi,
>
>Julien Lepiller <julien <at> lepiller.eu> skribis:
>
>> this patch is a small change to the manual that should help at least
>> one confused user from
>>
>https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/550597/what-is-the-file-to-be-specified-in-guix-system-reconfigure
>>
>>>From dfa9439efbf1de7ffe281dac330a19c1e369e5d8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
>2001
>> From: Julien Lepiller <julien <at> lepiller.eu>
>> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2020 21:46:57 +0200
>> Subject: [PATCH] doc: Mention config.scm in reconfigure description
>>
>> * doc/guix.texi (Invoking guix system): Mention `/etc/config.scm' in
>the
>> description of guix system reconfigure.
>> ---
>> doc/guix.texi | 8 ++++----
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/doc/guix.texi b/doc/guix.texi
>> index a6e14ea177..c10387441e 100644
>> --- a/doc/guix.texi
>> +++ b/doc/guix.texi
>> @@ -28919,10 +28919,10 @@ As for @command{guix package --search}, the
>result is written in
>> (@pxref{Top, GNU recutils databases,, recutils, GNU recutils
>manual}).
>>
>> @item reconfigure
>> -Build the operating system described in @var{file}, activate it, and
>> -switch to it <at> footnote{This action (and the related actions
>> -@code{switch-generation} and @code{roll-back}) are usable only on
>> -systems already running Guix System.}.
>> +Build the operating system described in @var{file} (typically
>> +@file{/etc/config.scm}), activate it, and switch to it <at> footnote{This
>action
>> +(and the related actions @code{switch-generation} and
>@code{roll-back}) are
>> +usable only on systems already running Guix System.}.
>
>Perhaps “(typically @file{/etc/config.scm})” should go next to
>“@var{file} must be …”?
>
>But if the person doesn’t read more than a few lines of the page, it
>won’t help.
>
>I was thinking we could have “guix system reconfigure” without
>arguments
>pick up /run/current-system/configuration.scm. Perhaps that’d help?
I think it would be even more confusing, because that file isn't even editable. So you'de get users thinking they must re-install the distro to change that file.
Others would eventually find /etc/config.scm and not pass it as argument, then get their system reconfigured to something different than what they specified.
Maybe it should be "e.g. /etc/config, initially generated by the graphical installer" or something?
>
>Thanks,
>Ludo’.
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#43361
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Mon, 14 Sep 2020 07:26:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #17 received at 43361 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi,
Julien Lepiller <julien <at> lepiller.eu> skribis:
> Le 13 septembre 2020 17:10:30 GMT-04:00, "Ludovic Courtès" <ludo <at> gnu.org> a écrit :
>>Hi,
>>
>>Julien Lepiller <julien <at> lepiller.eu> skribis:
>>
>>> this patch is a small change to the manual that should help at least
>>> one confused user from
>>>
>>https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/550597/what-is-the-file-to-be-specified-in-guix-system-reconfigure
>>>
>>>>From dfa9439efbf1de7ffe281dac330a19c1e369e5d8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
>>2001
>>> From: Julien Lepiller <julien <at> lepiller.eu>
>>> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2020 21:46:57 +0200
>>> Subject: [PATCH] doc: Mention config.scm in reconfigure description
>>>
>>> * doc/guix.texi (Invoking guix system): Mention `/etc/config.scm' in
>>the
>>> description of guix system reconfigure.
>>> ---
>>> doc/guix.texi | 8 ++++----
>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/doc/guix.texi b/doc/guix.texi
>>> index a6e14ea177..c10387441e 100644
>>> --- a/doc/guix.texi
>>> +++ b/doc/guix.texi
>>> @@ -28919,10 +28919,10 @@ As for @command{guix package --search}, the
>>result is written in
>>> (@pxref{Top, GNU recutils databases,, recutils, GNU recutils
>>manual}).
>>>
>>> @item reconfigure
>>> -Build the operating system described in @var{file}, activate it, and
>>> -switch to it <at> footnote{This action (and the related actions
>>> -@code{switch-generation} and @code{roll-back}) are usable only on
>>> -systems already running Guix System.}.
>>> +Build the operating system described in @var{file} (typically
>>> +@file{/etc/config.scm}), activate it, and switch to it <at> footnote{This
>>action
>>> +(and the related actions @code{switch-generation} and
>>@code{roll-back}) are
>>> +usable only on systems already running Guix System.}.
>>
>>Perhaps “(typically @file{/etc/config.scm})” should go next to
>>“@var{file} must be …”?
>>
>>But if the person doesn’t read more than a few lines of the page, it
>>won’t help.
>>
>>I was thinking we could have “guix system reconfigure” without
>>arguments
>>pick up /run/current-system/configuration.scm. Perhaps that’d help?
>
> I think it would be even more confusing, because that file isn't even editable. So you'de get users thinking they must re-install the distro to change that file.
I mean you could still pass a file as an argument, but if you don’t,
it’d pick that one.
> Others would eventually find /etc/config.scm and not pass it as argument, then get their system reconfigured to something different than what they specified.
>
> Maybe it should be "e.g. /etc/config, initially generated by the graphical installer" or something?
I think “typically /etc/config.scm” is enough (and more accurate),
dunno.
Ludo’.
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#43361
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Thu, 10 Jun 2021 11:40:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #20 received at 43361 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi,
On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 at 21:48, Julien Lepiller <julien <at> lepiller.eu> wrote:
> this patch is a small change to the manual that should help at least
> one confused user from
> https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/550597/what-is-the-file-to-be-specified-in-guix-system-reconfigure
What is the status of this patch?
<http://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/43361>
Thanks,
simon
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#43361
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Tue, 13 Jul 2021 09:33:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #23 received at 43361 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi,
This patch [1] is about a tiny tweak of the doc to add a mention of
/etc/config.scm. I do not know if the consensus is reached.
1: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/43361>
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 at 09:25, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> wrote:
> Julien Lepiller <julien <at> lepiller.eu> skribis:
>> Le 13 septembre 2020 17:10:30 GMT-04:00, "Ludovic Courtès" <ludo <at> gnu.org> a
>> écrit :
>>>Julien Lepiller <julien <at> lepiller.eu> skribis:
>>>
>>>> this patch is a small change to the manual that should help at least
>>>> one confused user from
>>>>
>>>https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/550597/what-is-the-file-to-be-specified-in-guix-system-reconfigure
>>>>
>>>>>>From dfa9439efbf1de7ffe281dac330a19c1e369e5d8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
>>>2001
>>>> From: Julien Lepiller <julien <at> lepiller.eu>
>>>> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2020 21:46:57 +0200
>>>> Subject: [PATCH] doc: Mention config.scm in reconfigure description
>>>>
>>>> * doc/guix.texi (Invoking guix system): Mention `/etc/config.scm' in
>>>the
>>>> description of guix system reconfigure.
>>>> ---
>>>> doc/guix.texi | 8 ++++----
>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/doc/guix.texi b/doc/guix.texi
>>>> index a6e14ea177..c10387441e 100644
>>>> --- a/doc/guix.texi
>>>> +++ b/doc/guix.texi
>>>> @@ -28919,10 +28919,10 @@ As for @command{guix package --search}, the
>>>result is written in
>>>> (@pxref{Top, GNU recutils databases,, recutils, GNU recutils
>>>manual}).
>>>>
>>>> @item reconfigure
>>>> -Build the operating system described in @var{file}, activate it, and
>>>> -switch to it <at> footnote{This action (and the related actions
>>>> -@code{switch-generation} and @code{roll-back}) are usable only on
>>>> -systems already running Guix System.}.
>>>> +Build the operating system described in @var{file} (typically
>>>> +@file{/etc/config.scm}), activate it, and switch to it <at> footnote{This
>>>action
>>>> +(and the related actions @code{switch-generation} and
>>>@code{roll-back}) are
>>>> +usable only on systems already running Guix System.}.
>>>
>>>Perhaps “(typically @file{/etc/config.scm})” should go next to
>>>“@var{file} must be …”?
>>>
>>>But if the person doesn’t read more than a few lines of the page, it
>>>won’t help.
>>>
>>>I was thinking we could have “guix system reconfigure” without
>>>arguments
>>>pick up /run/current-system/configuration.scm. Perhaps that’d help?
>>
>> I think it would be even more confusing, because that file isn't even
>> editable. So you'de get users thinking they must re-install the distro to
>> change that file.
>
> I mean you could still pass a file as an argument, but if you don’t,
> it’d pick that one.
>
>> Others would eventually find /etc/config.scm and not pass it as argument,
>> then get their system reconfigured to something different than what they
>> specified.
>>
>> Maybe it should be "e.g. /etc/config, initially generated by the graphical
>> installer" or something?
>
> I think “typically /etc/config.scm” is enough (and more accurate),
> dunno.
Personally, I find both equal. Maybe it is worth the apply the patch.
Since it is the doc, if it appears unclear from feedback, let then
improve. WDYT?
Cheers,
simon
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
Request was from
zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
to
control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
.
(Tue, 14 Sep 2021 13:49:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#43361
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Tue, 12 Oct 2021 21:44:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #28 received at 43361 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi,
On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 at 21:48, Julien Lepiller <julien <at> lepiller.eu> wrote:
> this patch is a small change to the manual that should help at least
> one confused user from
> https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/550597/what-is-the-file-to-be-specified-in-guix-system-reconfigure
This patch#43361 [1] from one year ago does not make consensus, IIRC.
What is its current status? What could be the next actionable step? Do
we close it?
Cheers,
simon
1: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/43361>
Reply sent
to
Julien Lepiller <julien <at> lepiller.eu>
:
You have taken responsibility.
(Fri, 19 Nov 2021 14:39:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Notification sent
to
Julien Lepiller <julien <at> lepiller.eu>
:
bug acknowledged by developer.
(Fri, 19 Nov 2021 14:39:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #33 received at 43361-close <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Closing since we can't come up with a consensus :)
[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]
bug archived.
Request was from
Debbugs Internal Request <help-debbugs <at> gnu.org>
to
internal_control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
.
(Sat, 18 Dec 2021 12:24:07 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
This bug report was last modified 2 years and 91 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.