help-guix
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: /etc/config.scm issues after modifying


From: Ian Eure
Subject: Re: /etc/config.scm issues after modifying
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 19:34:58 -0700
User-agent: mu4e 1.8.13; emacs 28.2

Hi Patrick,

Patrick Pippen <plpippen4@gmail.com> writes:

https://paste.debian.net/1327458

Getting this error: /etc/config.scm:23:0 : error: %desktop-services: invalid field specifier I made these modifications trying to 1) not use substitutes and compile from source and add bspwm so that I can login into it via the default login manager.

Is this not really correct way to do this or am I going about it the wrong way?


You have three errors in your configuration, all related. The first is that your parens are unbalanced, which causes %desktop-services to end up at the wrong level of nesting. This is what causes the error you get, because you’re initializing the fields of operating-system, and %desktop-services is not a valid specification of a field name and value.

The second is that %my-services is a list of services, but you wrap it in a second list on line 45. The third is that you have %desktop-services in your service list on line 53, but are also including a modified version of %desktop-services. This would cause an error about duplicate services.

You want to fix the parens and remove the (service %my-services) from line 45, and replace %desktop-services with %my-services on line 53. Your services should look like this:

   (services
    (append
     (list
      (service xfce-desktop-service-type)
      (service cups-service-type)
      (set-xorg-configuration
       (xorg-configuration (keyboard-layout keyboard-layout))))
     ;; This is the list of services we are appending to.
     %my-services))

You may have other paren-balancing issues in there. If you’re using an editor with decent Lisp support, the simplest way to fix this is to reindent the whole file (in Emacs: C-x h C-M=\) and eyeball it. Any issues will be reasonably evident in the indentation of each field.

Best,

 — Ian



reply via email to

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