From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carlos Sosa Subject: Re: Guix "ops" Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 11:47:23 -0700 Message-ID: <87a8wpj1s4.fsf@gnusosa.net> References: <87k2wx6t1e.fsf@fsf.org> <87vbgdy6x8.fsf@gnu.org> <87fv7h5zhk.fsf@fsf.org> <87mw1obbfq.fsf@gnu.org> <87bnhzrjf1.fsf@gnusosa.net> <87382oejz8.fsf@fsf.org> <87a8wwiokj.fsf@gnu.org> <87zj4wd1hz.fsf@fsf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42065) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YxgMg-0003iD-5U for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 May 2015 14:47:43 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YxgMZ-0003Le-B5 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 May 2015 14:47:42 -0400 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:34368) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YxgMZ-0003LC-4B for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 May 2015 14:47:35 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YxgMX-0007Gz-92 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 May 2015 20:47:33 +0200 Received: from 216-75-224-2.static.wiline.com ([216.75.224.2]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 27 May 2015 20:47:33 +0200 Received: from gnusosa by 216-75-224-2.static.wiline.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 27 May 2015 20:47:33 +0200 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-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: guix-devel@gnu.org David Thompson writes: > Thinking out loud here: Maybe 'guix deploy' can kick off the > provisioning for all machines first, and afterwards the OS configs can > be altered to include the correct /etc/hosts file. I like the idea of `guix deploy` with a minor change where we add `guix deploy machine`, but can that be a command that calls separate steps like `guix provision machine` and then `guix set-config machine` or something similar. My intention with that, is that if the command `guix set-config machine` fails at least `guix deploy machine` worked and you can SSH to that machine or debug why did the OS configs failed. To deploy all of our machines in #machines-list we can do `guix deploy` where it defaults to `guix deploy all`. I guess this hints more on the usability perspective, but I think provisioning the OS and the configuration provision should be separate tasks. I will try to develop that soon. I know a patch says more than words. :) > I threw out OpenStack because it's a self-hostable, free software VM > platform. I'm open to any other platforms that will exercise the full > range of capabilities that 'guix deploy' needs to be useful. I've been using LXC - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LXC to work around with Guix and play with substitutes and offloading. It's been pretty straight forward and clean, I don't know if that would be something to consider. - Carlos