Hi,
Maxim Cournoyer skribis:
>> We’ll have to discuss the implications of a possible move to
>> ‘define-configuration’. For example, ‘define-configuration’ cannot
>> report missing field values (for fields that lack a default value) at
>> macro-expansion time, contrary to plain ‘define-record-t
Hi Ludovic,
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> Maxim Cournoyer skribis:
>
>> Thanks for this extra bit of information and for spotting this usage. I
>> think "location" is likely to conflict for the general purpose
>> 'define-configuration' generated records, so I've renamed the "location"
>> *accessor
Maxim Cournoyer skribis:
> Thanks for this extra bit of information and for spotting this usage. I
> think "location" is likely to conflict for the general purpose
> 'define-configuration' generated records, so I've renamed the "location"
> *accessor* to "source-location".
Thank you.
It wasn’t
Hi Ludovic,
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> Ludovic Courtès skribis:
>
>> Maxim Cournoyer skribis:
>
> [...]
>
>>> No :-). I meant why do we even set a default accessor for the *source
>>> location* information (in the (gnu service configuration) macros); it's
>>> that one that doesn't seem to get
Hi Pierre,
Pierre Langlois writes:
> Hi all!
>
> As suggested by mirai off-list, it would be nice to have a test that
> would have caught the issue. How do people feel about something along
> the following patch? The idea is to use namespaces in the dovecot config
> to declare the INBOX and anot
Ludovic Courtès skribis:
> Maxim Cournoyer skribis:
[...]
>> No :-). I meant why do we even set a default accessor for the *source
>> location* information (in the (gnu service configuration) macros); it's
>> that one that doesn't seem to get used (or I'm blind to it!), at least
>> via this a
Hi Maxim,
Maxim Cournoyer skribis:
> Ludovic Courtès writes:
[...]
That generates two accessors called ‘namespace-configuration-location’.
The second one shadows the first one.
>>>
>>> Yes. You didn't address my question directly though, so let me ask it
>>> again: where is this %l
Hi all!
As suggested by mirai off-list, it would be nice to have a test that
would have caught the issue. How do people feel about something along
the following patch? The idea is to use namespaces in the dovecot config
to declare the INBOX and another additional mailbox.
The bug is quite obscure
Hi Maxim,
Maxim Cournoyer writes:
> Hi Ludovic,
>
> Ludovic Courtès writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Maxim Cournoyer skribis:
>>
> The issue seems to be with the serialization of the
> object nested in the
> record. I tried this at the REPL:
>
> scheme@(guile-user)> ,m (gnu servic
Hi Ludovic,
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> Hi Maxim,
>
> Maxim Cournoyer skribis:
>
>>> We have this:
>>>
>>> (define-record-type* #,(id #'stem #'< #'stem #'>)
>>>stem
>>>#,(id #'stem #'make- #'stem)
>>>#,(id #'stem #'stem #'?)
>>>#,@(map (lam
Hi Maxim,
Maxim Cournoyer skribis:
>> We have this:
>>
>> (define-record-type* #,(id #'stem #'< #'stem #'>)
>>stem
>>#,(id #'stem #'make- #'stem)
>>#,(id #'stem #'stem #'?)
>>#,@(map (lambda (name getter def)
>> #`(#,n
Hi Ludovic,
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> Hi,
>
> Maxim Cournoyer skribis:
>
The issue seems to be with the serialization of the
object nested in the
record. I tried this at the REPL:
scheme@(guile-user)> ,m (gnu services mail)
scheme@(gnu services mail)> (namespace
Hi,
Maxim Cournoyer skribis:
>>> The issue seems to be with the serialization of the
>>> object nested in the
>>> record. I tried this at the REPL:
>>>
>>> scheme@(guile-user)> ,m (gnu services mail)
>>> scheme@(gnu services mail)> (namespace-configuration (name "inbox"))
>>> $8 = #< name: "i
Hi Pierre,
Pierre Langlois writes:
> Hi Maxim,
>
> Maxim Cournoyer writes:
[...]
>> The change was reinstated as part of the mcron update, in
>> 44554e7133aa60e1b453436be1e80394189cabd9. The bit that seems to cause
>> the issue here (still not clearly understood) is probably this one:
>>
>>
Hello,
I think I encountered the same bug when I updated my home rofi service
to use a configuration. It also has a `location` entry but it takes an
integer.
Here is a repro to reproduce it using `guix repl`:
scheme@(guix-user)> (use-modules (gnu services configuration))
scheme@(guix-use
Hi Maxim,
Maxim Cournoyer writes:
[...]
Yeah I'm afraid I still see the same issue after a `git pull` just now:
~/code/guix [env]$ ./pre-inst-env guix system build -e '(@@ (gnu tests
mail) %dovecot-os)'
/gnu/store/ayfvf5s561q955kv8wrkklrvq3ga3qpy-system
~/code/gui
Hi Pierre,
Pierre Langlois writes:
[...]
I did:
$ ./pre-inst-env guix system build -e '(@@ (gnu tests mail) %dovecot-os)'
/gnu/store/gpl6g2ia84kc41zma7ik9y4p3kik5aiy-system
Then:
$ guix gc -R /gnu/store/gpl6g2ia84kc41zma7ik9y4p3kik5aiy-system | grep
Pierre Langlois writes:
> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
>
> Pierre Langlois writes:
>
>> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
>>
>> Maxim Cournoyer writes:
>>
>>> Hi Pierre,
>>>
>>> Pierre Langlois writes:
>>>
Hi Guix!
After updating the system, the dovecot service got confused and st
Pierre Langlois writes:
> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
>
> Maxim Cournoyer writes:
>
>> Hi Pierre,
>>
>> Pierre Langlois writes:
>>
>>> Hi Guix!
>>>
>>> After updating the system, the dovecot service got confused and started
>>> moving around all mailboxes. I looked up the configuration and
Maxim Cournoyer writes:
> Hi Pierre,
>
> Pierre Langlois writes:
>
>> Hi Guix!
>>
>> After updating the system, the dovecot service got confused and started
>> moving around all mailboxes. I looked up the configuration and noticed
>> strange invalid syntax for the location field:
>>
>> locatio
Hi,
Maxim Cournoyer writes:
> Hi,
>
> Ludovic Courtès writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Pierre Langlois skribis:
>>
>>> After updating the system, the dovecot service got confused and started
>>> moving around all mailboxes. I looked up the configuration and noticed
>>> strange invalid syntax for the lo
Hi Pierre,
Pierre Langlois writes:
> Hi Guix!
>
> After updating the system, the dovecot service got confused and started
> moving around all mailboxes. I looked up the configuration and noticed
> strange invalid syntax for the location field:
>
> location=#< file: "path/to/config.scm" line: 29
I'm also experiencing the same issue (guix describe:
7e0ad0dd0f2829d6f3776648ba7c88acf9888d7a).
My guess is that 44554e7133aa60e1b453436be1e80394189cabd9 (which supersedes
543d971ed2a1d9eb934af1f51930741d7cc4e7ef)
introduces a '%location' field which conflicts with 'dovecot-configuration'
itsel
Hi,
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> Hi,
>
> Pierre Langlois skribis:
>
>> After updating the system, the dovecot service got confused and started
>> moving around all mailboxes. I looked up the configuration and noticed
>> strange invalid syntax for the location field:
>>
>> location=#< file: "path/
Hi,
Pierre Langlois skribis:
> After updating the system, the dovecot service got confused and started
> moving around all mailboxes. I looked up the configuration and noticed
> strange invalid syntax for the location field:
>
> location=#< file: "path/to/config.scm" line: 297 column: 20>
>
>
>
Hi Guix!
After updating the system, the dovecot service got confused and started
moving around all mailboxes. I looked up the configuration and noticed
strange invalid syntax for the location field:
--8<---cut here---start->8---
location=#< file: "path/to/conf
26 matches
Mail list logo
