Hi, For more context of this issue, please check out:
https://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/64472 --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- Please note the Guix project switched from Debbugs to Codeberg on 2025 [1] and the migration path states that both ’bug-guix’ and ’guix-patches’ mailing lists should be now in “Emergency Moderation” mode. This message contributes to the effort of transferring (or closing!) the open tickets from the deprecated tracker system to the current issue tracker hosted on Codeberg <https://codeberg.org/guix/guix>. Please join the effort by cleaning all your tickets that remain open. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 at 11:17, Simon Tournier <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 05 Jul 2023 at 17:21, Blake Shaw <[email protected]> wrote: > >> But like, should this happen? Should we ever be rolling back to an >> empty "0" generation that doesn't even contain guix, and thus creates >> a pickle for those who don't have prior knowledge of how to get out of >> it? Should we limit gc --delete-generations to always keep a previous >> generation at hand, perhaps unless forced by some other flag, so that >> [in particular, new] users don't break their systems in the middle of >> the day and then have something to solve that encumbers their plans & >> work? > > IMHO, it is an bug with “guix pull --roll-back”. When the current > generation is the older one, then it should not be possible to > roll-back; or roll-back should do nothing in this corner case. > > It should not be possible to create an empty profile numbered 0. The bug is still there, I guess. Well, I’m in favor to close it and open a fresh issue in order to guard this corner case of rolling back to an empty generation. Cheers, simon 1: https://codeberg.org/guix/guix-consensus-documents/src/commit/e31476f12cd9d4b7138e423d938691eda42a3dff/002-codeberg.md
