"Profile contains conflicting entries" could be more helpful

Hi Folks,

When trying to install "python-twine", installation failed with the

following error:

$ guix package --install python-twine

The following package will be installed:

python-twine 1.9.1 /gnu/store/fh72qswc2gpj1c1xb2gm23hfs1vx4lk2-python-twine-1.9.1

guix package: error: profile contains conflicting entries for python-requests:out

guix package: error: first entry: python-requests@2.13.0:out /gnu/store/4paqanwmdw2d7ss9hdq7d34b43ycjgsv-python-requests-2.13.0

guix package: error: ... propagated from python-twine@1.9.1

guix package: error: second entry: python-requests@2.13.0:out /gnu/store/z4jqf8p2z73dscrjmbpwamdvyfdaqkgx-python-requests-2.13.0

This was quite baffling - it wasn’t clear to me why there was a

conflict, whether it was related to something I'd done and what I could

do to fix it.

If I understand correctly, the cause is that I had manually installed

"python-requests" at some stage and that only one version can be

available in my profile, and that "python-twine" depended on a different

version.

I believe the action I need to take to resolve the conflict is:

guix package --install python-twine --upgrade python-requests

So I think the bug is that the user interface could be more helpful here.

It should probably either tell you what happened and what you can do to

fix it, or offer to resolve the conflict/perform the upgrade for you.

Regards,

Ben

Hi Ben,

Ben Sturmfels <ben@sturm.com.au> skribis:

Would it be desirable or even feasible to resolve the conflict for you?

I wouldn’t want the tool to remove installed packages without asking me,

for instance.

Could you suggest messages you’d like to see in this case?

Thanks,

Ludo’.

tags 29255 moreinfo

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

Guix could resolve the conflict by upgrading the existing and

conflicting item in the profile. In my experience that’s usually what a

user wants.

Guix could also remind the users to use “--manifest” or to upgrade items

in the profile.

In this case it is not entirely clear that the existing python-requests

package in the profile is “old”. The version looks the same and the

hash is opaque.

Would it be possible to record something about the Guix version that was

used to install a package? Then we could say:

An older variant of python-requests is installed in this profile

(propagated from package “foo-bar”) and conflicts with a newer variant

(propagated from package “python-twine”).

I understand that it is challenging to accurately describe the version

of Guix in the presence of GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH. With a more formal

definition of channels (e.g. requiring a description file for the

channel that includes a version or date string) this problem could be

side-stepped.

--

Ricardo

GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC

Hi,

Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> skribis:

When the version numbers are the same, we cannot tell whether a variant

is “older”, we can just tell that it’s different. Also, I find it

useful to see the propagation stack as is currently the case.

With the patch below, I get:

and:

How does that sound?

We could further refine the hint to suggest using ‘guix package -m’,

though I’m not sure if it’d be a useful hint (it’s a useful

recommendation, but not necessarily good as a “fix hint.”)

Thoughts?

Thanks,

Ludo’.

Hello!

ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis:

I’ve pushed the patch as commit

3b80b81358b3861ca3794105c8eb4395df97846b. Hopefully these hints help

users get on the right track, and we can always adjust them.

Thanks,

Ludo’.

On 11/12/17 09:47, Ludovic Courtès wrote:

That's Ludo, that's great!