From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org>
Subject: Re: GuixSD bootable ISO-9669 image
Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 21:37:11 +0200
Message-ID: <20170507213711.4eaec310@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>
	<20170502220904.3f27ce9f@scratchpost.org> <871ss72cd2.fsf@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35441)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <dannym@scratchpost.org>) id 1d7Rzj-0000O2-5p
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 May 2017 15:37:28 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <dannym@scratchpost.org>) id 1d7Rzg-0003W1-2S
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 May 2017 15:37:27 -0400
In-Reply-To: <871ss72cd2.fsf@gnu.org>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Ludovic =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

Hi Ludo,

On Tue, 02 May 2017 23:11:05 +0200
ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) wrote:
> OK.  Are these =E2=80=9CUUIDs=E2=80=9D 160-bit long like the =E2=80=9Crea=
l=E2=80=9D ones?  If they are,
> I=E2=80=99d suggest ignoring the problem for now.

No, unfortunately not.  There's also a similar problem in the FAT support i=
n the same module.

I think Linux doesn't actually mean real DCE uuids when they say "uuid", so=
 I don't think pretending that they are real uuids is going to be useful (b=
ecause at some point control passes to /dev/disk/by-uuid, parted or grub - =
which interpret uuids like they want - which isn't necessarily as real uuid=
s).

So I think the best course of action is to drop the real DCE uuids entirely=
 and make uuids be free-form strings - like these other programs already de=
cided...

What do you think?