Hi, For reference: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/25952>.
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 at 19:26, zimoun <zimon.touto...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 00:43, zimoun <zimon.touto...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 22:32, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <m...@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 āā 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/gā¦") >> 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