From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id sP4BHZQs1l8OXgAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 15:00:36 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2 with LMTPS id 8CzZGJQs1l91VQAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 15:00:36 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08B289403CB for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 15:00:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:40208 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1koSrS-0008Ur-N6 for larch@yhetil.org; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 10:00:34 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60020) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1koSqw-0008UV-IQ for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 10:00:02 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:38361) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1koSqw-0003Im-An for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 10:00:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1koSqw-0005ow-7p for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 10:00:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#45020] [PATCH 0/2] image: Add system field. Resent-From: Danny Milosavljevic Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2020 15:00:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 45020 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Mathieu Othacehe Received: via spool by 45020-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B45020.160787156322300 (code B ref 45020); Sun, 13 Dec 2020 15:00:02 +0000 Received: (at 45020) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Dec 2020 14:59:23 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49907 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1koSqI-0005nb-Mt for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 09:59:23 -0500 Received: from dd26836.kasserver.com ([85.13.145.193]:55696) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1koSqG-0005nP-1C for 45020@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 09:59:20 -0500 Received: from localhost (80-110-125-229.cgn.dynamic.surfer.at [80.110.125.229]) by dd26836.kasserver.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D401D33638A9; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 15:59:17 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2020 15:59:13 +0100 From: Danny Milosavljevic Message-ID: <20201213155913.7022f5ee@scratchpost.org> In-Reply-To: <87h7orpgsh.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20201203105353.149482-1-othacehe@gnu.org> <87eejw5lsn.fsf@gnu.org> <87h7orpgsh.fsf@gnu.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.7 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/NBMwKrgYhkw+aAvqQ_la8Fm"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: guix-patches@gnu.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: 45020@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -2.40 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 08B289403CB X-Spam-Score: -2.40 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn1.migadu.com X-TUID: c+RNUjhg0AHu --Sig_/NBMwKrgYhkw+aAvqQ_la8Fm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I want to note that there's a difference between cross-compiling things and natively compiling things (even if only qemu transparent emulation). The resulting images between cross vs non-cross could be (and probably are) different. So I think there should be a command line parameter to the image script that specifies whether to cross-compile or not--there's no way around it that I = can see. Also, this image generation thing is mostly for bootstrapping Guix, so it is fine if that only supports configurations we actually tested. Ludo said: > > However, I > > feel like is the wrong place for =E2=80=98system=E2=80=99 and = =E2=80=98target=E2=80=99: the > > image format, conceptually, has nothing to do with whether we=E2=80=99re > > cross-compiling, compiling for a specific system, etc. =20 It depends on what you mean. How the word "image format" is colloquially u= sed in the VM world, it very much has to with what guest system (and even which emulator) this image is for, and that's not at all variable. But I agree that there are other things that could be variable per image ta= rget system, like the kernel version that actually works, the u-boot that actual= ly works, the partition layout that actually works, the initrd modules, weird system packages and/or activation scripts that are required for booting etc. See buildroot. Mathieu said: > On the one hand, I agree that adding "system" and "target" to , > so that they can override the corresponding arguments doesn't feel > nice. On the other hand, I think that dealing with system/target is too > low level for most users. I agree. Also, I want to stress that if we do this kind of image generatio= n, it has to be for Guix images we actually tested. So the general case with specifying a random system and target we never saw before cannot be support= ed anyway (and will likely not work), especially since bootloaders are anything but portable in general. > When using Yocto, Buildroot or even OpenWrt, you say "build me an image > for that board/machine" and not, "build me an image for that board by > cross-compiling to this mysterious triplet". I agree that we should not ask the user to specify a triplet to build a guix system image. It's obvious what the triplet is per image, since we tested it anyway (riiiight?). > If the user selects the image type "pine64" or "novena", it's obvious > that the image has to be built for ARM, so I think it makes sense to > hardcode it somewhere.=20 I agree. --Sig_/NBMwKrgYhkw+aAvqQ_la8Fm Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEds7GsXJ0tGXALbPZ5xo1VCwwuqUFAl/WLEEACgkQ5xo1VCww uqUZcwgAgWuEsiJ7Q6B8D+em4JqUIHOU6/SWwdfURrPhlDIS1cO3SbEIYfUUn9bJ XXZlEZ2JgCs2YA1NXK/y9xqz3MUJ2Vz54Yhg+1+r0w9tjLbZDtLIobIARodaherU bx3fweuwc9QpedTUDexQDS86qGamOulJkCBgVqVjo+hfHDQ9xADYr8ksk/ifK7le /8JfW1BCm6H8XPkIplpJRxi5T4HlZaLoo+0l93siLmeak/cw1h5wESKqyx/vy1hM J52bl6eegMBUqLRyRo2c8ANx89b+SSO5RT1EjTphq9LooXcJ3FuoGkrWH/DOGP3z IaEdGaKEMxWEp1Rk5GACNfCBXViG5w== =cLyo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/NBMwKrgYhkw+aAvqQ_la8Fm--