From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42762)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1hph7H-0003w8-D2
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 18:49:12 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1hph7F-0002WJ-9k
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 18:49:11 -0400
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:53146)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
 (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>)
 id 1hph78-0002N9-9z
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 18:49:03 -0400
Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1hph78-0008Nh-5r
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 18:49:02 -0400
Subject: [bug#36738] [PATCH] guix deploy: Support '--no-grafts' and '--system'
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.36738.B36738.156383572132191@debbugs.gnu.org>
From: zerodaysfordays@sdf.lonestar.org (Jakob L. Kreuze)
References: <87a7d9l2hw.fsf@member.fsf.org> <874l3eauda.fsf@sdf.lonestar.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 18:46:06 -0400
In-Reply-To: <874l3eauda.fsf@sdf.lonestar.org> (Jakob L. Kreuze's message of
 "Mon, 22 Jul 2019 12:48:01 -0400")
Message-ID: <87sgqx8z81.fsf@sdf.lonestar.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
List-Id: <guix-patches.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-patches>,
 <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-patches>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-patches@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-patches>,
 <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-patches" <guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?=E5=AE=8B=E6=96=87=E6=AD=A6?= <iyzsong@member.fsf.org>
Cc: 36738@debbugs.gnu.org

zerodaysfordays@sdf.lonestar.org (Jakob L. Kreuze) writes:

> Great idea. I think that continuing to call the machine's
> <operating-system> '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 <operating-system> field to
> 'os' or something similar, and use the 'system' field to specify the
> target architecture instead? Any thoughs?

Actually, I had a thought. Why should we make this explicit, when we
could take an implicit approach and identify the target's architecture
with 'remote-eval'? Ideally, we'll be probing the machines anyway to
implement safety checks on the <operating-system> declaration, so why
not just add this to our list of pre-deployment tests?

Regards,
Jakob