From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:48802) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hq4vv-0002el-GI for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 20:15:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hq4vu-00006J-Eb for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 20:15:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:55242) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hq4vu-00006A-B8 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 20:15:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hq4vu-0000tc-3V for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 20:15:02 -0400 Subject: [bug#36738] [PATCH] guix deploy: Support '--no-grafts' and '--system' Resent-Message-ID: From: zerodaysfordays@sdf.lonestar.org (Jakob L. Kreuze) References: <87a7d9l2hw.fsf@member.fsf.org> <874l3eauda.fsf@sdf.lonestar.org> <87sgqx8z81.fsf@sdf.lonestar.org> <878ssovgw5.fsf@dustycloud.org> <87o91kbefk.fsf@elephly.net> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 20:11:59 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87o91kbefk.fsf@elephly.net> (Ricardo Wurmus's message of "Tue, 23 Jul 2019 23:59:11 +0200") Message-ID: <8736iw9tps.fsf@sdf.lonestar.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" 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: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: 36738@debbugs.gnu.org, =?UTF-8?Q?=E5=AE=8B=E6=96=87=E6=AD=A6?= --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Ricardo, Ricardo Wurmus writes: > I don=E2=80=99t know if this qualifies, but if =E2=80=9Cguix deploy=E2=80= =9D were to *create* > a machine (e.g. on EC2 via the Guile AWS library) it wouldn=E2=80=99t be = able > to probe it first. But in that case we would have full control over > what the target would be, so no probing would be required. Ah, good point. I suppose didn't think about this all the way through in my response -- we wouldn't be able to probe an unprovisioned machine. But your point gives me even more confidence in the decision to deduce target architecture at runtime and have that as an environment-specific check. Thanks for chiming in! Regards, Jakob --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEa1VJLOiXAjQ2BGSm9Qb9Fp2P2VoFAl03ok8ACgkQ9Qb9Fp2P 2VrWfQ//QWErE0BO3gMv+4qkYUoj1gHIyG71/D8F3r/yjJLufHtwyEu12Qwz8Wun nsJQ2NDz59t3G7k5eYvKitogUqak2XwA5C/j5E0MODBuW5vNYoBQJ8HZoPIyUGlG GXePJJqYYOyzSWKUdbO6fZl2/MitNBkmdQdrExU+OzG6NUp7oqLOQCt4g3Suqa44 8cxuo/PqyLvKmGrbB8oBOQEKM1XKyx8J+tMuPc93uq9Hph/+s2C+I9oQaCnSPjsG aawGVT9hF+zTtOnxqYk8qfYH8FzK3FKVnZHUAQZom5rTwchF752II/JlHwkPnCFL 8QNhGMJsi0AbyyZucfXQ3426D4sR7awYcVkpkzvi24+HjGR8qBlopyXEhvGOq42W DVu2gmKTpLjC7do+/K0wGKwO3jo6LKNHxnpTjw5StTWnsZWEXyz8YJ1G3HH3RMzx 5J6MxfB2PjvN2Zpa5tcHo4UqWEHSXoY4TJefKi3gs2t/gcHUlqyY44r6D8+J7b2T sb+nH5hWCrEritIXhRMUVWRZ8ZwcQiuUGdTCzSQzbSn2lspJGZ1vlhpynt4eZYZL P8F5p7MKGH0pf6fiatFDPPzJwDLGnTi3bt+iLsLFlor0egCai05Cz9VloPpGFPLz 6Bc8FY0tsp5evflgEAqRkGejevnyrT05x2561s07fdJh0uJIx24= =dqP4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--