So it seems that guix pull should always be followed by guix package -u ? If so, why doesn't guix pull just do the upgrade?
Thanks Jim ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, January 19th, 2022 at 2:45 PM, Ricardo Wurmus <rek...@elephly.net> wrote: > Wiktor Żelazny w...@freeshell.de writes: > > > [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]] > > > > On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 03:51:35PM +0100, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > > > > > Wiktor Żelazny w...@freeshell.de writes: > > > > > > > Hey, this sounds just like the problem I reported earlier this > > > > > > > > month. > > > > > > Can you please tell us the issue number? > > > > I did not file an issue as I wasn’t sure if that was a bug. I’m talking > > > > about the “"libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.33' not found" with guix > > > > time-machine --channels” thread on this mailing list, started on January > > > > 8th. > > Oh, okay. I thought there had been a bug report with a discussion I > > missed. > > > > Builds are isolated, of course, but it’s common that people who don’t > > > > > > use manifests end up building a profile that consists of a colorful > > > > > > mosaic of packages from different versions of Guix. > > > > > > guix install foo > > > > > > guix pull > > > > > > guix install bar > > > > > > guix pull > > > > > > guix install baz > > > > I suppose that this problem does not arise if `guix package -u` is run > > > > after each `guix pull`? > > It should not happen then, correct. > > Though I have had reports from confused users at work who say that “guix > > upgrade” doesn’t necessarily help, and that they actually had to use > > “guix install” on all packages again. I haven’t been able to confirm > > this yet. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Ricardo
