unofficial mirror of guix-patches@gnu.org 
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com>
To: Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org>
Cc: 29932@debbugs.gnu.org, "Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org>
Subject: [bug#29932] [PATCH v2 2/2] system: Rename operating-system-user-kernel-arguments to operating-system-kernel-arguments.
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2020 13:50:39 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87k0w0txn4.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180112154356.3fbd9177@scratchpost.org> (Danny Milosavljevic's message of "Fri, 12 Jan 2018 15:43:56 +0100")

Hello,

Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org> writes:

> Hi Ludo,
>
>> I’m a bit lost: in my tree I don’t have
>> ‘operating-system-boot-kernel-arguments’.  Is it still pending?
>
> It's added by PATCH v2 1/2 from the series.  Didn't the second mail get through?
>
>> Otherwise my only question is whether it’s a good idea to move away from
>> the ‘user-’ convention.  On one hand, it’s the convention we also have
>> for services (‘-user-services’ vs. ‘-services’), so it would be a good
>> thing to remain consistent.  OTOH, what you propose is maybe clearer.
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>
> Yeah, I've split it into two patches because I actually got used to
> operating-system-user-kernel-arguments by now (only a few days in).
> We could only apply PATCH v2 1/2 and not apply PATCH v2 2/2 if we
> wanted.
>
> In the end it comes down to whether we deem the existence
> operating-system-boot-kernel-arguments an implementation detail or not
> (whether the user would ever need to be aware of
> operating-system-boot-kernel-arguments).  We have to export
> operating-system-boot-kernel-arguments because one thing in
> gnu/system/vm.scm needs it - otherwise it would be very much an
> implementation detail.
>
> Let's see what the others say.

Two years later, here's what I have to say :-)

I think it's nice, as a user, to be able to inspect the dynamically
computed kernel arguments that Guix would use, as that can be used for
debugging and gaining a better understanding (e.g., when passing an
argument option that overrides one computed by Guix).

If I followed this discussion correctly, currently we have:

1. operating-system-kernel-arguments which is a combination of
dynamically computed arguments by Guix + the users arguments and
2. operating-system-user-arguments which are the users arguments
themselves.

It is proposed here to split this into:

1. operating-system-boot-kernel-arguments for the Guix-computed ones
2. operating-system-user-kernel-arguments remains unchanged

Thus if the user wants to know what boot arguments their system will
use, they'd have to append these two together.

I think that two years have elapsed without touching this is perhaps an
indication that it doesn't address any real problem :-).  While it's
good to attempt to clarify things, I'm afraid that changing this would
confuse more that it'd help.  As Ludovic pointed out, it'd also clash
with the convention currently in use for services.

What you do think?

Maxim




  reply	other threads:[~2020-10-08 17:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-01-01 13:22 [bug#29932] [PATCH 0/2] Clean up operating-system-kernel-arguments Danny Milosavljevic
2018-01-01 13:27 ` [bug#29932] [PATCH 1/2] system: Inline operating-system-kernel-arguments Danny Milosavljevic
2018-01-01 13:27   ` [bug#29932] [PATCH 2/2] system: Rename operating-system-user-kernel-arguments to operating-system-kernel-arguments Danny Milosavljevic
2018-01-08  9:26 ` [bug#29932] [PATCH 0/2] Clean up operating-system-kernel-arguments Ludovic Courtès
2018-01-09  8:21   ` Danny Milosavljevic
2018-01-09  8:52     ` Ludovic Courtès
2018-01-09 10:34       ` Danny Milosavljevic
2018-01-09 11:53         ` Ludovic Courtès
2018-01-09 10:39   ` Danny Milosavljevic
2018-01-09 18:59     ` Danny Milosavljevic
2018-01-11 16:43       ` Ludovic Courtès
2018-01-12 10:59 ` [bug#29932] [PATCH v2 1/2] system: Split up operating-system-kernel-arguments into operating-system-boot-kernel-arguments and operating-system-user-kernel-arguments Danny Milosavljevic
2018-01-12 11:01   ` [bug#29932] [PATCH v2 2/2] system: Rename operating-system-user-kernel-arguments to operating-system-kernel-arguments Danny Milosavljevic
2018-01-12 14:06     ` Ludovic Courtès
2018-01-12 14:43       ` Danny Milosavljevic
2020-10-08 17:50         ` Maxim Cournoyer [this message]
2021-07-13 11:56           ` bug#29932: [PATCH 0/2] Clean up operating-system-kernel-arguments Maxim Cournoyer

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://guix.gnu.org/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87k0w0txn4.fsf@gmail.com \
    --to=maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com \
    --cc=29932@debbugs.gnu.org \
    --cc=dannym@scratchpost.org \
    --cc=ludo@gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).