From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Loading modules built using linux-module-build-system
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 19:55:16 +0100
Message-ID: <87sgl163u3.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <877e8snntp.fsf@jlicht.xyz>
 <20191021202733.3c340770@scratchpost.org>
 <20191021204857.5dff6e9b@scratchpost.org>
 <20191021233925.0ba18a4c@scratchpost.org> <87k18x3r3g.fsf@gnu.org>
 <20191114173143.6924e46e@scratchpost.org> <87bltakzqj.fsf@gnu.org>
 <20191222210627.63fe1388@scratchpost.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 ([2001:470:142:3::10]:57372)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1im0CI-00057m-9f
 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:55:23 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20191222210627.63fe1388@scratchpost.org> (Danny Milosavljevic's
 message of "Sun, 22 Dec 2019 21:06:27 +0100")
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: <https://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: Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, 37868@debbugs.gnu.org

Hello,

Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org> skribis:

> On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 21:35:32 +0100
> Ludovic Court=C3=A8s <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
>> Rather than a list, we could have a =E2=80=98make-linux-libre-union=E2=
=80=99 procedure
>> returning a <package>, so that we preserve consistent typing.
>>=20
>> That is, people could write:
>>=20
>>   (kernel linux-libre)
>>=20
>> or:
>>=20
>>   (kernel (make-linux-libre-union linux-libre some-package))
>>=20
>> WDYT?
>
> Hmm, isn't it more like a profile?  I mean it would work the way above but
> there's (presumably) some reason why SOME-PACKAGE was an extra package.

You=E2=80=99re right, the union thing above is like a profile.

> We don't have to use the /run/current-system/profile for that, it could be
> a new one.
>
> What are the downside of using a profile vs. using a package in that way?

No downside to using a profile, as long as it=E2=80=99s not
/run/current-system/profile.  The only remaining question is the
programming interface.

Possible options include =E2=80=98make-linux-libre-union=E2=80=99 above or =
a new
=E2=80=98linux-module-packages=E2=80=99 field in <operating-system> as disc=
ussed at
<https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2019-10/msg00514.html>.

HTH,
Ludo=E2=80=99.