From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35634) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d7ou1-0003el-H6 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 08 May 2017 16:05:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d7oty-0007ZE-Cb for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 08 May 2017 16:05:05 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:57545) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d7oty-0007ZA-9V for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 08 May 2017 16:05:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d7otx-0005Pf-Tl for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 08 May 2017 16:05:01 -0400 Subject: bug#26339: [PATCH v2 01/12] system: Pass to grub. Resent-Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 22:04:15 +0200 From: Danny Milosavljevic Message-ID: <20170508220415.0a18be95@scratchpost.org> In-Reply-To: <874lwvku5q.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20170417090148.13791-1-m.othacehe@gmail.com> <20170417090148.13791-2-m.othacehe@gmail.com> <87zienofiy.fsf@gnu.org> <20170508155109.19fa060d@scratchpost.org> <874lwvku5q.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 26339@debbugs.gnu.org Hi Ludo, On Mon, 08 May 2017 21:47:29 +0200 ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) wrote: > This does not remove the circular dependency, it just expresses it > differently, so I don=E2=80=99t think it will help. Using >=20 > (module-ref (resolve-interface '(gnu system grub)) > 'grub-configuration-file) >=20 > would have achieved the effect you wanted. Hmm.... I've tested the @@-version locally by removing all the .go files an= d then doing guix system reconfigure ... which took ages every time. And i= t worked just fine, no errors, no warnings, nothing. Did I test it wrong? > However, that=E2=80=99s pretty much a band-aid, so we should look for a w= ay to > improve this. Yes, but as soon as the other bootloader patches are merged the band-aid wo= uld be gone. We have multiple choices here,=20 (1) revert all ~12 commits, or (2) do the band-aid, leave the commits in and review and merge the remainde= r later, or (3) review and merge all the other bootloader patches now... I don't have a strong preference. If I knew how flaky even simple changes = in these modules are I wouldn't have been in favor of refactoring them at a= ll... (really, just having u-boot with Grub as payload - and grub-efi as pa= rt of regular grub - would have been much simpler than this, in retrospect) Note that there are now two other patch series by two different people whic= h depend on these.