From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: =?UTF-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor_Boskovits?= <boskovits@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Installer and luks support.
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 12:25:09 +0100
Message-ID: <CAE4v=pi_jttMWeiXcD2G1-YkXdx=Kf_LdLWFgdUsMuHN0Er95Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8736r8kcdp.fsf@gmail.com> <874lbn7h65.fsf@gnu.org>
	<87sgz7zejd.fsf@gmail.com>
	<CAE4v=pgcoSo5Egc8pVoA8p-FGw5izm7w7SFSR_8AfoM61f1uww@mail.gmail.com>
	<87o99vymr2.fsf@gmail.com>
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]:47719)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <boskovits@gmail.com>) id 1gVxDH-0007It-HF
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2018 06:25:32 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <boskovits@gmail.com>) id 1gVxDG-0007FR-T4
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2018 06:25:31 -0500
In-Reply-To: <87o99vymr2.fsf@gmail.com>
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: Mathieu Othacehe <m.othacehe@gmail.com>
Cc: Guix-devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>

Mathieu Othacehe <m.othacehe@gmail.com> ezt =C3=ADrta (id=C5=91pont: 2018. =
dec.
9., V, 12:15):
>
>
> Hi G=C3=A1bor,
>
> > Can't we offer here the option to retry the failed step? i.e. guix syst=
em init
> > in this case? I mean we have everything set up to simply retry. Does
> > that make sense?
>
> Yes that could be a viable option. We could allow the user to launch
> again the install command, but we cannot allow him to go back to the
> installer menu and resume the process wherever.
>

I believe this might be a good choice first. This seems also easier to do.

> Or, we could keep the menu active but remove some critical steps such as
> "partitioning" that require umounting/closing.
>

On the long run it would be nicer to get the dependencies and the resources
figured out, so the we can go back to whatever step we want. I mean if a st=
ep
needs a resource available, for example the mount then we can make it avail=
able
when entering that step. And when for example we repartiton the drive, then=
 all
later steps depends on that, so we need to redo all the later steps. WDYT?

> What do you think?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mathieu