From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:44841)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1hpyEl-0003AL-0z
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 13:06:03 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1hpyEk-0000OS-0D
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 13:06:02 -0400
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:54963)
 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 1hpyEj-0000Ni-RM
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 13:06:01 -0400
Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1hpyEj-0006m7-JN
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 13:06:01 -0400
Subject: [bug#36738] [PATCH] guix deploy: Support '--no-grafts' and '--system'
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.36738.B36738.156390152025983@debbugs.gnu.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <87a7d9l2hw.fsf@member.fsf.org> <874l3eauda.fsf@sdf.lonestar.org>
 <87sgqx8z81.fsf@sdf.lonestar.org>
In-Reply-To: <87sgqx8z81.fsf@sdf.lonestar.org>
From: "Thompson, David" <dthompson2@worcester.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 13:05:01 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJ=Rwfb=i0NRqrtxK-RysWy-M902WfPbYupXF3N2iy1VRJYT0g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
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: "Jakob L. Kreuze" <zerodaysfordays@sdf.lonestar.org>
Cc: 36738@debbugs.gnu.org, =?UTF-8?Q?=E5=AE=8B=E6=96=87=E6=AD=A6?= <iyzsong@member.fsf.org>

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 6:48 PM Jakob L. Kreuze
<zerodaysfordays@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>
> 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?

I don't see a compelling reason for the architecture to be a part of
the machine data type at this time.  I'd like to avoid such low-level
details if possible because I don't think they will translate well to
more complex methods of deployment.

- Dave