Hello, zna...@disroot.org writes:
> Hello, Katherine! I fuzzily remember this subject in maillists, maybe we > discussed this feature. And there were instruction of how to define in `guix > package -u` those packages you won't update. > Also I know guix has feature to check substitutes (`guix weather`, is it?). > > I think we need a script that will do this: > 1) guix pull > 2) get a list of new packages and dependencies that all will be updated > 3) check which of them haven't substitutes > 4) run `guix package -u` without those packages that have not substitutes. > 4.1) or run `guix package -u` without only those big packages you defined like > 'not to update if they have no substitutes' I also do think a way of only updating with substitutes would be nice. However, I'm not really fond of that behaviour. I'm pretty sure it has already been discussed somewhere and I probably lack knowledge to give a proper answer but here are my two cents. IMHO, I would rather go for a server side solution. Something a 'simple' as a lagging - automated or curated - channel could do the trick. (1 day, 1 week with/out meaningfull commits) Obviously, that means, a minimal profile won't be able to get its substitutes as soon as possible but the difference shouldn't be that large anyway (what is it? 24h? 48h?). Plus, it's a gain in term of computation, speed of update, use of network etc. Also, any tool that would automatically resolve in a potential partially updated profile, even if advertised, is probably a door to a lot of incomprehension and unwanted behaviour. --do-not-upgrade and -u $package are ok because the user take an active part in it. > I think this can be done with guix features but this is hard work, not for > usual users. > And sure guix must have this feature. > > > August 2, 2019 8:42 PM, "Katherine Cox-Buday" <cox.katherin...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hey Guix! >> >> Very often I find myself updating systems only to get stuck on building >> something large like LibreOffice or Un-Googled Chromium. Usually the >> substitutes for these are available a few days later. >> >> It would be nice if I could pass a flag to `guix package -u` that would >> disallow building in the event a substitute wasn't available. Is that >> `--fallback=false`? If so, that's a double-negative; is there a clearer >> way to represent both without acreting options? >> >> -- >> Katherine Have a nice day, Lprndn
