From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>
Subject: Re: Installation
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 16:47:24 +0100
Message-ID: <87k1wgh4hf.fsf@elephly.net>
References: <CAE4v=pgH-zZXEHQGCJrOanRhR2w+BDuWY3u9ugF+mjd5jMNiBg@mail.gmail.com>
	<87mv1c4kp7.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]:56468)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1ebpwF-0006sL-FV
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 10:47:46 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1ebpwE-0003S5-ED
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 10:47:43 -0500
In-reply-to: <87mv1c4kp7.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 =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: Guix-devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>


Ludovic Court=C3=A8s <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> G=C3=A1bor Boskovits <boskovits@gmail.com> skribis:
>
>> I believe, that we could make a powerful extension to guixsd if we could=
 do
>> an installation from an installation description.
>>
>> I think this installation description should look like the operating-sys=
tem description we
>> already have.
>
> In what way would it defer?  :-)
>
> =E2=80=98operating-system=E2=80=99 *is* an =E2=80=9Cinstallation descript=
ion.=E2=80=9D

I guess it would differ from what we have currently in that it would
also specify partitioning information, which is not handled by
=E2=80=9Coperating-system=E2=80=9D.

Does it make sense to extend =E2=80=9Coperating-system=E2=80=9D such that d=
isk
partitioning information could be included and (*holds breath*) acted
upon automatically?

Acting on partitioning info is a little scary because it can easily lead
to data loss upon reconfiguration.  Small bugs could lead to very big
problems, so maybe this should not be default behaviour.

--
Ricardo

GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
https://elephly.net