From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40133) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hvQjF-00036a-7s for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Aug 2019 14:32:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hvQjE-0006lB-8H for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Aug 2019 14:32:05 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:58759) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hvQjE-0006kv-5E for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Aug 2019 14:32:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hvQjE-0005lZ-1I for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Aug 2019 14:32:04 -0400 Subject: [bug#36872] [PATCH 2/2] remote: Remove '--system' argument. Resent-Message-ID: References: <87lfwee2yd.fsf@sdf.lonestar.org> <87h872e2v2.fsf@sdf.lonestar.org> <87ef1yovur.fsf@dustycloud.org> <877e7qvv75.fsf@sdf.lonestar.org> From: Christopher Lemmer Webber In-reply-to: <877e7qvv75.fsf@sdf.lonestar.org> Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2019 14:31:58 -0400 Message-ID: <87a7ckq129.fsf@dustycloud.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: "Jakob L. Kreuze" , David Thompson Cc: 36872@debbugs.gnu.org Jakob L. Kreuze writes: > Hey Chris! > > Christopher Lemmer Webber writes: > >> I'm still wondering whether asking the remote machine what its >> architecture is won't turn out to be fragile in some way, though I'm not >> sure how to articulate how that would be yet. It seems like a weird >> side effect to apply before doing the build. (What if we want to build >> derivations when we don't actually have a machine up and running yet? >> Etc, etc.) > > I agree that it isn't the purest solution, but my thinking is that > 'remote-eval' is meant to be effectful anyway. As for the situation > where we build derivations for a machine that isn't running yet: I think > we can cross that bridge when we get to it -- 'guix deploy' doesn't have > the feature at the moment. > > Regards, > Jakob I thought about it more between yesterday and today, and it continues to seem strange to me that we're doing "probing" here. We don't probe to guess where Guix is currently installed or etc to specify disks. I guess that's not the same thing, but... Here's the concern: imagine that we want to be able to up-front do something like "guix system build" before we even start spinning up servers. Does this block that direction? Dave, your input appreciated on this one. I'm not sure I want to block the patch series with my hand wringing, but I do want to make sure we give it appropriate consideration. - Chris