From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "kanichos@yandex.ru" Subject: Re: Allow system configuration without a bootloader Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2020 00:39:30 +0300 Message-ID: <357561577914770@vla1-c477e3898c96.qloud-c.yandex.net> References: <1092401577892668@sas8-f59b61ed75ea.qloud-c.yandex.net> <8960E4BA-7509-4D5C-B93C-8F39AC188F3F@lepiller.eu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:38053) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1imliN-0004zS-Mb for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Jan 2020 16:39:40 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1imliK-0007hu-Tq for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Jan 2020 16:39:38 -0500 Received: from forward103j.mail.yandex.net ([2a02:6b8:0:801:2::106]:51238) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1imliI-0007bF-M8 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Jan 2020 16:39:36 -0500 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: Julien Lepiller , "guix-devel@gnu.org" Yes, AFAIR it only works with =E2=80=98init=E2=80=99 and has no effect at= all with =E2=80=98reconfigure=E2=80=99.=20 02.01.2020, 00:12, "Julien Lepiller" : > Le 1 janvier 2020 10:31:08 GMT-05:00, kanichos@yandex.ru a =C3=A9crit : >> Hello. >> >> I am very happy with manually setting up my boot programs. On UEFI >> systems I don=E2=80=99t use a standalone bootloader at all, because I = think it >> is so unnecessary, and rely on Linux =E2=80=98EFI stub=E2=80=99 functi= onality. I don=E2=80=99t >> ever want any automatic scripts to intervene. >> >> For a couple of years I have used this: >> (bootloader (grub-configuration (target "/dev/null"))) >> It works, but produces an ugly error during configuration. >> >> I believe the field should actually be made optional. > > Have tried to use --no-bootloader when reconfiguring?