[substitute-urls] Fails when given only "berlin.guixsd.org"

  • Done
  • quality assurance status badge
Details
4 participants
  • Björn Höfling
  • Leo Famulari
  • Ludovic Courtès
  • swedebugia
Owner
unassigned
Submitted by
swedebugia
Severity
normal
S
S
swedebugia wrote on 5 Nov 2018 00:41
(address . bug-guix@gnu.org)
7461b803-d8af-2e76-358e-35592f3ca995@riseup.net
$ guix package -i hello --substitute-urls=berlin.guixsd.org
substitute: guix substitute: error: berlin.guixsd.org: invalid URI
guix package: error: build failed: substituter `substitute' died
unexpectedly

Adding "http://" works:

$ guix package -i wget --substitute-urls=http://berlin.guixsd.org--dry-run
The following package would be upgraded:
   wget    1.19.5 → 1.19.5
/gnu/store/7jd4nbdamp5bjvvi9acnk4nkk2dzyi71-wget-1.19.5

substitute: updating substitutes from 'http://berlin.guixsd.org'... 100.0%
The following derivations would be built:
   /gnu/store/y6yg5dsfam30v8d7f77bafysqjnbdhgj-profile.drv
   /gnu/store/qdgr96gw7jil08wqhp897mf8qzhhv32b-info-dir.drv
   /gnu/store/66apflyp7b41blxl7s6pv56kq5mfb8h4-fonts-dir.drv
/gnu/store/1d0njpsg6ch60hh5zdkg2lf173kqv32f-ca-certificate-bundle.drv
   /gnu/store/jba4idqg0q0rq0pvdal8scjf9176xx8z-manual-database.drv

$ which guix
/home/sdb/.config/guix/current/bin/guix

$ guix --version
guix (GNU Guix) 1f44934fb6e2cefccbecd4fa347025349fa9ff76

--
Cheers
Swedebugia
B
B
Björn Höfling wrote on 5 Nov 2018 19:13
(name . swedebugia)(address . swedebugia@riseup.net)(address . 33261-done@debbugs.gnu.org)
20181105191322.64a47ea0@alma-ubu
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 00:41:46 +0100
swedebugia <swedebugia@riseup.net> wrote:

Toggle quote (7 lines)
> $ guix package -i hello --substitute-urls=berlin.guixsd.org
> substitute: guix substitute: error: berlin.guixsd.org: invalid URI
> guix package: error: build failed: substituter `substitute' died
> unexpectedly
>
> Adding "http://" works:

Hi swedebugia,

I would not consider this a bug: It clearly says that it is not a
proper URI. Also in the documentation all URLs/URIs are written in the
form of

PROTOCOL://SERVER/PATH.

Closing this one,

Björn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAlvgiEMACgkQvyhstlk+X/123ACcCQcKc20XQwoyQG3yPUmzfcfA
Z88An2CjI3lL+VzciC3jWAq7lspVrsna
=a7yK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Closed
L
L
Leo Famulari wrote on 5 Nov 2018 20:46
20181105194618.GA18731@jasmine.lan
On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 07:13:22PM +0100, Björn Höfling wrote:
Toggle quote (6 lines)
> I would not consider this a bug: It clearly says that it is not a
> proper URI. Also in the documentation all URLs/URIs are written in the
> form of
>
> PROTOCOL://SERVER/PATH.

I agree that it's not a bug, but perhaps it's more like a wishlist item.

Ideally, users would not need to concern themselves with implementation
details like protocol selection.

Guix could offer a more unified or simpler interface for authorizing and
selecting substitute servers, and it would handle server addresses,
communication protocols, and key authorization. Currently it's very
ad-hoc.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=Smo3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


S
S
swedebugia wrote on 5 Nov 2018 21:48
62e5ca73-88e9-7e50-ea0c-f4a8f4c50dbf@riseup.net
Hi

On 2018-11-05 20:46, Leo Famulari wrote:
Toggle quote (16 lines)
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 07:13:22PM +0100, Bj�rn H�fling wrote:
>> I would not consider this a bug: It clearly says that it is not a
>> proper URI. Also in the documentation all URLs/URIs are written in the
>> form of
>>
>> PROTOCOL://SERVER/PATH.
> I agree that it's not a bug, but perhaps it's more like a wishlist item.
>
> Ideally, users would not need to concern themselves with implementation
> details like protocol selection.
>
> Guix could offer a more unified or simpler interface for authorizing and
> selecting substitute servers, and it would handle server addresses,
> communication protocols, and key authorization. Currently it's very
> ad-hoc.

+1

It is error prone and hard to understand for newcomers what is going on
behind the scenes.

I wrote this report from the perspective of a newcomer - ideally they
should not receive any errors at all if you ask me.

Do you have any ideas how to implement anything better?

A newt-ncurses interface maybe?

--
Cheers
Swedebugia
L
L
Leo Famulari wrote on 5 Nov 2018 22:01
(name . swedebugia)(address . swedebugia@riseup.net)
20181105210135.GF19298@jasmine.lan
On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 09:48:55PM +0100, swedebugia wrote:
Toggle quote (4 lines)
> Do you have any ideas how to implement anything better?
>
> A newt-ncurses interface maybe?

I didn't necessarily mean an interactive tool, but a more unified way of
handling substitute server selection. It's a critical aspect of Guix
security so we'd probably want to think on it for a while.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=AjX/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 6 Nov 2018 15:07
(name . Leo Famulari)(address . leo@famulari.name)
87y3a61eqp.fsf@gnu.org
Hello,

Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> skribis:

Toggle quote (17 lines)
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 07:13:22PM +0100, Björn Höfling wrote:
>> I would not consider this a bug: It clearly says that it is not a
>> proper URI. Also in the documentation all URLs/URIs are written in the
>> form of
>>
>> PROTOCOL://SERVER/PATH.
>
> I agree that it's not a bug, but perhaps it's more like a wishlist item.
>
> Ideally, users would not need to concern themselves with implementation
> details like protocol selection.
>
> Guix could offer a more unified or simpler interface for authorizing and
> selecting substitute servers, and it would handle server addresses,
> communication protocols, and key authorization. Currently it's very
> ad-hoc.

I agree with the goal, but it’s really a long-term goal with lots of
open issues that go way beyond Guix AIUI (for instance, how do you map a
public key to an actual “address”?.)

So I’m closing it as not-a-bug, but feel free to open a wishlist item
where we can discuss other ways to handle substitutes in the future.

Thanks,
Ludo’.
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 6 Nov 2018 15:08
control message for bug #33261
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
87wopq1epq.fsf@gnu.org
tags 33261 notabug
?