emacs-bug-tracker
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[debbugs-tracker] bug#32789: closed (Bash finds old version of guix afte


From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: [debbugs-tracker] bug#32789: closed (Bash finds old version of guix after guix pull)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 16:07:03 +0000

Your message dated Fri, 21 Sep 2018 18:06:16 +0200
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#32789: Bash finds old version of guix after guix pull
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #32789,
regarding Bash finds old version of guix after guix pull
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden)


-- 
32789: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=32789
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Bash finds old version of guix after guix pull Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 16:49:41 -0500 User-agent: mu4e 1.1.0; emacs 27.0.50
Hello,

After installing guixsd (0.15) on a VM and doing "guix pull", "guix --version"
gives 0.14-<stuff>.

I asked about this on IRC a few weeks ago and got a helpful answer. All
I needed to do to fix is was to run a simple bash command.
Unfortunately, I've forgotten what that was :-(

Reporting here since I didn't find anything in the issue tracker when I
looked.

Thanks,
Alex



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: bug#32789: Bash finds old version of guix after guix pull Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 18:06:16 +0200 User-agent: mu4e 1.0; emacs 26.1
Hi Alex,

> I'll mention here for posterity that restarting the system also "fixes"
> the issue.

Yes, bash will not remember paths across reboots.

> I still don't understand why bash found guix 0.14 after guix pulling
> from guix 0.15 though.

Bash optimizes lookups on the PATH; having found an executable on PATH
once, it can remember that location for a minor speed boost.  The only
problem with this is that the cache can go stale.

>From what I understand remembering locations is usually done manually by
running “hash”.  I don’t know what would trigger this behaviour in your
case.

--
Ricardo



--- End Message ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]