From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Craven Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] system: Rename grub to bootloader. Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 15:45:53 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20170110184243.6100-1-david@craven.ch> <87bmvc4b85.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48616) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cRgdb-0003y8-DO for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 09:46:03 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cRgdW-0007Fm-E6 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 09:45:59 -0500 Received: from mail-qk0-x241.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400d:c09::241]:32990) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cRgdW-0007FP-9N for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 09:45:54 -0500 Received: by mail-qk0-x241.google.com with SMTP id 11so2987890qkl.0 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 06:45:53 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87bmvc4b85.fsf@gnu.org> 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" To: =?UTF-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel I agree on this patch. The renaming is not very good and breaks things. It needs to be done in smaller steps. The one that renames the flag could be done dough, since that doesn't break anything and changes the cli interface. The sooner we can do that the better IMO, because it is a user facing change. I need to study for my exams the next week or two, but my current thinking on the next steps to accomplish the goal of being bootloader agnostic are: 1. discard in gnu/system/grub in favor of from gnu/system - small api changes 2. focus on the code in gnu/system/vm.scm and gnu/build/vm.scm. A lot of decisions are being made about the qemu package, the qemu flags, the file-system, the bootloader, the architecture and the kernel etc. that should be moved elsewhere. - will affect guix/scripts/system and probably the system tests infrastructure, the existing api should be kept to avoid breakage in those parts. Currently using a different bootloader affects far to many parts of the codebase. Do you think that (in general) adding new code to gnu/build is still a valid design choice or do you consider it a better idea to turn most of the code from gnu/build incrementally into gexps in gnu/system?