From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: GuixSD bootable ISO-9669 image
Date: Mon, 08 May 2017 16:14:58 +0200
Message-ID: <87wp9rmo4d.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <20170418141719.llp77itz7vyq5rij@abyayala>
	<87k26hwxt0.fsf@gmail.com> <8760i0m7vg.fsf@gnu.org>
	<87pog3u3ms.fsf@gmail.com> <87k26afl07.fsf_-_@gmail.com>
	<20170427190840.79bcaa76@scratchpost.org>
	<20170427220009.1d0d4607@scratchpost.org>
	<20170428101844.540ce399@scratchpost.org> <87efw7igen.fsf@gnu.org>
	<20170502220904.3f27ce9f@scratchpost.org> <871ss72cd2.fsf@gnu.org>
	<20170507213711.4eaec310@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 ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58084)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1d7jRJ-0000Bl-VP
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 May 2017 10:15:06 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1d7jRF-0003jM-7r
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 May 2017 10:15:05 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20170507213711.4eaec310@scratchpost.org> (Danny Milosavljevic's
	message of "Sun, 7 May 2017 21:37:11 +0200")
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: Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org> skribis:

> Hi Ludo,
>
> On Tue, 02 May 2017 23:11:05 +0200
> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) wrote:
>> OK.  Are these =E2=80=9CUUIDs=E2=80=9D 160-bit long like the =E2=80=9Cre=
al=E2=80=9D ones?  If they are,
>> I=E2=80=99d suggest ignoring the problem for now.
>
> No, unfortunately not.  There's also a similar problem in the FAT support=
 in the same module.
>
> I think Linux doesn't actually mean real DCE uuids when they say "uuid", =
so I don't think pretending that they are real uuids is going to be useful =
(because at some point control passes to /dev/disk/by-uuid, parted or grub =
- which interpret uuids like they want - which isn't necessarily as real uu=
ids).
>
> So I think the best course of action is to drop the real DCE uuids entire=
ly and make uuids be free-form strings - like these other programs already =
decided...
>
> What do you think?

I=E2=80=99d prefer to add a special =E2=80=98iso-9660-uuid=E2=80=99 form si=
milar to =E2=80=98uuid=E2=80=99 in
(gnu system file-systems).

That way we could detect that we get a valid UUID at macro-expansion
time or system-instantiation time, rather than end up with an error at
boot time.

WDYT?

Ludo=E2=80=99.