From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Danny Milosavljevic Subject: Re: GuixSD bootable ISO-9669 image Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 22:09:04 +0200 Message-ID: <20170502220904.3f27ce9f@scratchpost.org> References: <20170418141719.llp77itz7vyq5rij@abyayala> <87k26hwxt0.fsf@gmail.com> <8760i0m7vg.fsf@gnu.org> <87pog3u3ms.fsf@gmail.com> <87k26afl07.fsf_-_@gmail.com> <20170427190840.79bcaa76@scratchpost.org> <20170427220009.1d0d4607@scratchpost.org> <20170428101844.540ce399@scratchpost.org> <87efw7igen.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45212) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d5e6k-0000Gk-0g for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2017 16:09:14 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d5e6g-0000WW-Ra for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2017 16:09:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87efw7igen.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Ludovic =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Hi Ludo, On Tue, 02 May 2017 14:37:04 +0200 ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) wrote: > Seems to work! Nice :) > Could you clarify the two =E2=80=9CSee grub=E2=80=9D in here: >=20 > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > (define (iso9660-superblock-uuid sblock) > "Return the Volume ID of a iso9660 superblock SBLOCK as a 4-byte byteve= ctor." > ;; Note: The field is the volume creation time. > ;; FIXME Use only certain parts (See grub). > ;; FIXME treat "all 0" as invalid. > (sub-bytevector sblock 813 17)) Yeah. If you check out grub, /dev/disk/by-uuid or blkid, you can see that = for ISO9660 filesystems, it prints the "uuids" differently (because they ar= e not uuids, they are timestamps...). > Should =E2=80=98iso9660-uuid->string=E2=80=99 be different from =E2=80=98= uuid->string=E2=80=99? =46rom a purity standpoint I'd say no. From a compatibility standpoint, yes. > Anyway, I think we should polish and commit real soon. :-) Perhaps we > can add a note about endianness and assume little endian for now. Turns out that for the parts that we need we don't care about the endiannes= s either way. So I dropped the endianness now.