Hi, On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 at 16:50, Simon Tournier <zimon.touto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> @example >>> -guix shell --pure >>> +guix shell -CPW >>> @end example >> >> I would not recommend that or adding also the option -N. Else, the >> development experience can be annoying. > > As said, I disagree with this change pushed by > 01361d46b8e0481ad56665d7a06c276b08f59c6d. > > Could you revert? Because as explained by… > >> For instance, “make check” will probably fail because some substitutes >> are missing (see #67532 [1], e.g., tests/derivations.scm). > > …the option ’-CPW’ is not a solution. Other said, it would require in > addition ’-N’. Ludo’s answer from bug#67532 [1]: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- I had come to forget about that because for the ‘guix’ package (obviously built in a network-less environment), we “pre-seed” the store with the 4 or 5 files needed to run the test suite. So I propose: [ text/x-patch ] diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi index 0833b5d32c..0072e5d42d 100644 --- a/doc/contributing.texi +++ b/doc/contributing.texi @@ -76,13 +76,13 @@ Building from Git hack on Guix: @example -guix shell -D guix -CPW +guix shell -D guix -CPWN @end example or even, from within a Git worktree for Guix: @example -guix shell -CPW +guix shell -CPWN @end example If @option{-C} (short for @option{--container}) is not supported on your [ text/plain ] (And not going back to ‘--pure’ because as we know it depends too much of the goodwill of the user’s shell.) --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Well, IMHO it falls into… > To me, this recommendation of container is like a bazooka for chasing > the real bug: about why --pure does not clean all as expected. Or why > “guile” is found elsewhere? …a bazooka for killing a fly. For instance, in the two message of the initial bug report, I do not see the output of the current recommendation: run “guix shell --check”. Yes, “guix shell” depends on the goodwill of the user’s shell but recommending first --pure is an opportunity for improving --check and/or --pure itself, IMHO. Considering this reported instance of issue, it is not clear for me that --check would not have reported the problem. Or why --pure does not correctly clean all the environment variables? Or why ./configure set something system wide? For me, these questions are the bug. And -CPWN is just a temporary workaround avoiding the bug and not a fix. Somehow, if the use of “-CPWN” instead of “--pure“ is not an idea that user has when hitting a failure with “guix shell --pure”, yeah maybe it could be helpful to recommend it in addition. And not the contrary. :-) Something like:
diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi index 7337f4bd58..8f66b3642b 100644 --- a/doc/contributing.texi +++ b/doc/contributing.texi @@ -76,18 +76,19 @@ Building from Git hack on Guix: @example -guix shell -D guix -CPW +guix shell -D guix --pure @end example or even, from within a Git worktree for Guix: @example -guix shell -CPW +guix shell --pure @end example -If @option{-C} (short for @option{--container}) is not supported on your -system, try @command{--pure} instead of @option{-CPW}. -@xref{Invoking guix shell}, for more information on that command. +If building Guix fails, please check the environment variables using the +option @command{--check}. In the last resort, try @option{-CPWN} +instead of @command{--pure}. @xref{Invoking guix shell}, for more +information on that command. If you are unable to use Guix when building Guix from a checkout, the following are the required packages in addition to those mentioned in the
That’s said, going your road, I would suggest to add option, say -A/no-long-name doing all (-CPWN) at once. Cheers, simon 1: bug#67532: “make check” requires network Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> Mon, 11 Dec 2023 22:42:30 +0100 id:87sf482z7d....@gnu.org https://issues.guix.gnu.org/67532 https://issues.guix.gnu.org/msgid/87sf482z7d....@gnu.org https://yhetil.org/guix/87sf482z7d....@gnu.org