From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41612) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hpbWh-0003TT-0S for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 12:51:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hpbWf-00061H-Uq for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 12:51:02 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:52955) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hpbWf-000612-S3 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 12:51:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hpbWf-0003aN-Ki for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 12:51:01 -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> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 12:48:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87a7d9l2hw.fsf@member.fsf.org> ("=?UTF-8?Q?=E5=AE=8B=E6=96=87=E6=AD=A6?="'s message of "Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:05:31 +0800") Message-ID: <874l3eauda.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: =?UTF-8?Q?=E5=AE=8B=E6=96=87=E6=AD=A6?= Cc: 36738@debbugs.gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Wenwu, iyzsong@member.fsf.org (=E5=AE=8B=E6=96=87=E6=AD=A6) writes: > Hello, this patch handle the '--no-grafts' command line option: > ... > And '--system', so I can deploy a "i686-linux" from my "x86_64-linux": These patches look good to me, thank you! Ludo, Dave, Chris, any additional comments? > Or better we can add a 'system' field to the record, so we > can deploy a list of machines with different 'system'. Currently a > has 'system' as a field for the , so where > to put this machine/arch 'system'... Great idea. I think that continuing to call the machine's 'system' would be confusing if we introduced the notion of a target architecture, because we use "system" to refer to the target architecture in the rest of Guix's command-line tools. Maybe it would make sense to rename the field to 'os' or something similar, and use the 'system' field to specify the target architecture instead? Any thoughs? Regards, Jakob --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEa1VJLOiXAjQ2BGSm9Qb9Fp2P2VoFAl016MEACgkQ9Qb9Fp2P 2VrMLRAAk6C+LJ+XgMHB2tdwA8yN15/C1O0n58CEZiW+ZExuEcsr9lLtB4F/b9nU WgL2iZN0u3bEIzkyHHMX6r0JMdpI/6dKYhkRMsSn4BcsYLbVfSVUoNn7lEtNSmgK xsfyPhQ4ZPAyUGjKG2aAdqasxKHc/EAJxBJNpmkfwMPJUZra68gxIs0X0iLHMRlL Yl4VH5bOYrdCPZAw+ytd7DdM62JVJrcwT6MTXzF+W5IN2pNAdNRrktTMQcZ5kzhl MBhel/oLguur9r0oMOjpk+l+o2z2NhFV3mPQJPB4J2Z3Ff6p2nAbMeIeEaLoeIs6 EL1ULKVBfXY2nNCyq9orKEjjqYtk+PuANoaKFCBEuV94tSA59/S8OtDlC+QVOY5j F3Cg7g2+rdmnTpY8QrNo9uZzSgG5Sd2xWzqKZ+tYw8nOutfeQDvlUgS6YuLppBdJ isk2JHCMU1qOOoPDj4PP7PxEg6nYtrI8vuDeDHvTn+ifVIEfKwDJi+7DA88Z0jcz RdmXxQdzv5N9VcfO24Lz3KhqNmJNYatka4PQzlag9DIhXYPWXQVfzPbQPCjQMTTS jtaipr7EGd1yKDWuvbC6rei5v9j8eqBwmhfq4UZ7w+Auew5YTOBtv4TI1/DHavEM ySx5x0Vd6DqYX1YjyA4ey8Bh5VZTx4y/f2znGUhE9wMWOj4dBUY= =D9RS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--