From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53680) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d0OQf-0007Ei-8O for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 04:24:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d0OQc-0007HU-1n for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 04:24:05 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:55204) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d0OQb-0007HQ-Uh for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 04:24:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d0OQb-0002Y2-QF for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 04:24:01 -0400 Subject: bug#26339: [PATCH 04/18] bootloader: Add install procedures and use them. Resent-Message-ID: From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) References: <20170402135242.2958-1-m.othacehe@gmail.com> <20170402135242.2958-4-m.othacehe@gmail.com> <20170415182222.3e1cef0e@scratchpost.org> <8760i5iocd.fsf@gmail.com> <20170416233758.6194c357@scratchpost.org> <87efwr5sh3.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:23:08 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87efwr5sh3.fsf@gmail.com> (Mathieu Othacehe's message of "Mon, 17 Apr 2017 10:49:28 +0200") Message-ID: <878tmyt98z.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: Mathieu Othacehe Cc: 26339@debbugs.gnu.org Hello, Mathieu Othacehe skribis: >> If we decide that this use case isn't supported, that's fine. Many othe= r distros make the assumption that there's only one bootloader - which is s= ometimes good because you can have another bootloader the distribution does= n't know about (in addition to the one the distribution does know about) th= at supervises all the others. > > Well you're right multiple bootloader may co-exist on multiple > partitions. However I'm not sure how guix would manage more than one > bootloader at a time ? I=E2=80=99d be in favor of sticking with the only-one-bootloader assumption. Maybe we can revisit that later if there=E2=80=99s a need, but for now it s= eems much safer to just stick to that (and not block this patch set.) Thoughts? Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.