[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
?
Your comment

This issue is archived.

To comment on this conversation send an email to 33261@debbugs.gnu.org

To respond to this issue using the mumi CLI, first switch to it
mumi current 33261
Then, you may apply the latest patchset in this issue (with sign off)
mumi am -- -s
Or, compose a reply to this issue
mumi compose
Or, send patches to this issue
mumi send-email *.patch