Hi Danny,

Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org> writes:

[...]

> any comments about this patch?

I still don't understand the internals of Guix to be able to comment
yout patch, anyway...


[...]

> Rationale of the patch:
>
> * Make Linux more modular, allowing the user to specify a union of Guix packages
> to use as "the kernel" (especially kernel modules).

this would be a nice to have feature!

>
> Summary of the patch:
>
> * Add a profile hook "linux-module-database" which creates the union of all
> system packages that have a subdirectory "lib/modules" in their derivation,
> then invokes depmod on that union and then provides the result in the system
> profile.
>
> * Adapt modprobe to check "lib/modules" inside the system profile, if available.
> Fall back to "/run/booted-system/kernel/lib/modules" otherwise.
>
> For the case where a person has just reconfigured Guix but doesn't want to reboot,
> modprobe will still work, taking the modules of the old generation (which doesn't
> necessarily have Linux kernel modules inside the profile yet--because it doesn't
> necessarily have this patch yet.  But maybe it does).
>
> * Adapt operating-system-profile to automatically add the Kernel's modules to
> the system profile (since the system profile would be the only place searched,
> not doing so would be very bad).
>
> * Adapt linux-build-system not to invoke depmod again.  Also, its worldview
> would be incomplete anyway because it wouldn't have the entire system profile.
>
> Open questions:
>
> * Why doesn't operating-system-profile successfully add linux-libre ?
> It should.  I don't think Guix ever gets there in the first place. (adding
> linux-libre to operating-system's "packages" field manually does work)
>
> * Do we want to have this stuff in the system profile or do we want to have
> a "kernel profile" instead or something?  I don't think the latter would help
> us much, but if we want it, better do it now.
>
> * Do we want to be able to add kernel modules in this fashion without requiring
> a reboot?  If so, that would make the situation a lot more complicated and I
> don't see a safe way to do that.