From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Thompson, David" Subject: Re: [PATCH] system: container: Update to new service API. Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 00:19:00 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87611txiw7.fsf@izanagi.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <87k2q8v42g.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34166) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zreg2-0003Y5-I4 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 00:19:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zreg1-0004Sp-JK for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 00:19:02 -0400 Received: from mail-yk0-x235.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4002:c07::235]:33227) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zreg1-0004Sd-Cq for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 00:19:01 -0400 Received: by ykft191 with SMTP id t191so30664833ykf.0 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 21:19:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87k2q8v42g.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: =?UTF-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > Sorry, I meant to preserve #:container? behavior but I forgot this bit. > > I believe the attached patch provides an Even Greater Way to address the > problem, namely by making the modprobe/firmware thing an optional > service. > > Could you try and report back? I tried it in a VM and there=E2=80=99s no > regression. It works great, thanks! If you make a commit from this, I will reduce this patch to simply fixing gnu/system/linux-container.scm. > Besides, we=E2=80=99ll have to make sure =E2=80=98guix system extension-g= raph=E2=80=99 honors > --container. Hmm, yes, good point. I haven't looked at that code at all since it is so n= ew. - Dave