From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58495) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hq0at-00036x-Fm for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:37:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hq0as-0003Ki-HN for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:37:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:55074) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hq0as-0003KX-Dd for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:37:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hq0as-0002dn-9i for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:37:02 -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> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:33:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: <878ssovgw5.fsf@dustycloud.org> (Christopher Lemmer Webber's message of "Tue, 23 Jul 2019 12:45:46 -0400") Message-ID: <87a7d4bl6n.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: Christopher Lemmer Webber Cc: 36738@debbugs.gnu.org, =?UTF-8?Q?=E5=AE=8B=E6=96=87=E6=AD=A6?= --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Hi Chris, Christopher Lemmer Webber writes: > Maybe a good idea... let me think. Is there any case where we start > taking actions *before* we might probe a machine that we can think of? > > How would we also probe it? Is there a chance of our probing behaving > incorrectly? That would also be bad, if so. None that come to mind right now, and if there are any, I don't think they would be affected by the probing -- aside from doing work that would get thrown out when the script errors out. As for the safety of probing, none of the tests I intend on implementing are effectful. It would be equivalents for 'check-mapped-devices', 'check-file-system-availability', and 'check-initrd-modules', all of which do little beyond looking at the devices available on the system, and now a check that would read '%current-system'. > Another route is to have the user specify what architecture they think > the machine has, and instead the probing is a "safety check"? That'd work too, but I feel it's better to avoid putting an unnecessary burden on the user. Regards, Jakob --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEa1VJLOiXAjQ2BGSm9Qb9Fp2P2VoFAl03YQAACgkQ9Qb9Fp2P 2Vr/VA/9EELFdIHVKt6nrSt/bYXUU0ky5QzZ6Y3NrOTayljl/dY76sEiJDj7xqjA Ote4VODwW1cXeqNLSg+l/Bgg5hPbkYqT/zIcav54bJC0iHqlrFGX8inVDAsFf+gx b4JK8wSwnYQY0cdm0eTjvPF9CLLlf9bx0uJrs9SUzubANhrHURtDlwWMvfCYyiSs K+TWKgXvMaAICFfgEHIg9loG8COzSE9NXGtrwQeqa5Y38/XXusR8xdBF9mRYzVvY hspiNDQwtYOvsj+/NY4hFjjG3vEQD6UsDlldtCBelBCvjieyH3bmlhSvRfLHHYq3 gNibk72yia3ZcAmEItDm9BgioHAobZ+Pzkto3ymj5B54065qOq+o41kPymdKqkQ1 m1pBy/4nBa3xAdckjHkcLchKh0vWSqjAGQ1tdF00/fBfGOlryfFA6nasWgcCf5V6 MvJ6DRAoxro4oMBhbsZz5A5gJKfgMEvFYe+16SK3MUbhGP7ca70/S7XbA3MbTGWL yvf+1PokT5k9e8N6bwtvDi44YwbaQu8Eb/HLPKyjUBG0hHf6jMWALSRLiBHwl9JQ DOgGEgYQdjaPHOv9khjQrkwRfy4Xitu+QPWTVAQEYAE9kJiQSOPI3GeX4dBhJqk3 Vki0bu8clR1r6Fi+uSaGvuqNewX0tt1z3c+U78qR7gHHrSv5tFE= =SOKy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--