Re: [PATCH] Re: The usability of Guix configurations

[myglc2]

On 11/07/2017 at 22:27 Julien Lepiller writes:

> Le Tue, 07 Nov 2017 13:06:41 -0500,
> myglc2 <address@hidden> a écrit :
>
>> On 11/07/2017 at 17:25 julien lepiller writes:
>> 
>> > Le 2017-11-07 16:59, myglc2 a écrit :  
>> >> On 11/07/2017 at 15:52 julien lepiller writes:  
>> >>>
>> >>> Maybe that's too much?  
>> >>
>> >> Not for me. Looks great! Just a couple minor suggestions:
>> >>
>> >> 1) How about narrowing search to locations like this:
>> >>
>> >> Hint: You may use `guix package --show=foo | grep location` to
>> >> search for foo's location.  
>> >
>> > Oh, I didn't know this option, good idea, thanks :D
>> >  
>> >>
>> >> 2) I think you mean to say "foo" where you say "ssh" in the last
>> >> two HINTs  
>> >
>> > You're right, though I prefer to use "bar" to show there is no
>> > relation between
>> > the package name and its module.
>> >
>> > I added "[PATCH]" to the subject to get others look at this
>> > message. I plan to
>> > push it in a few days unless it gets more comments. If an
>> > experienced schemer
>> > could look at that, I'm sure the coding style could be improved a
>> > lot ;)  
>> 
>> Hmm, I think you  introduced a bug in your last changes because I now
>> get ...
>> 
>> address@hidden ~/con/17# guix system build sys.scm
>> guix system: error: failed to load 'sys.scm':
>> /root/con/17/sys.scm:79:19: /root/con/17/sys.scm:79:19: In procedure
>> module-lookup: Unbound variable: x11-forwarding?
>> 
>> ... on the attached sys.scm
>> 
>
> I don't understand the error... When trying to do (service
> openssh-service-type (openssh-configuration))), I get
>
> sys.scm:86:41: sys.scm:86:41: Wrong type to apply: #<syntax-transformer
> openssh-configuration>
>
> and I can't reproduce from the REPL... Why don't we get the same error
> with agetty-configuration (removing the openssh service does not make
> any error)?
>
> I was too optimistic I guess :)

Dunno. I double checked. I definitely get 'module-lookup: Unbound
variable: x11-forwarding?'  here with your latest patch.

I am happy to test something if that will help.

Just to be clear, I tested the patch that you sent immediately before
and _it worked great._ Did you diff these two patches?

> I was too optimistic I guess :)

This is not a problem for because, in my experience, there is usually
too little optimism ;)

It seems like I broke the thread. Sorry about that. - George