GNU bug report logs - #36738
[PATCH] guix deploy: Support '--no-grafts' and '--system'

Previous Next

Package: guix-patches;

Reported by: iyzsong <at> member.fsf.org (宋文武)

Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 05:06:01 UTC

Severity: normal

Tags: patch

Done: iyzsong <at> member.fsf.org (宋文武)

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 36738 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 36738 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox


Report forwarded to guix-patches <at> gnu.org:
bug#36738; Package guix-patches. (Sat, 20 Jul 2019 05:06:01 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to iyzsong <at> member.fsf.org (宋文武):
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to guix-patches <at> gnu.org. (Sat, 20 Jul 2019 05:06:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: iyzsong <at> member.fsf.org (宋文武)
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH] guix deploy: Support '--no-grafts' and '--system'
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:05:31 +0800
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Hello, this patch handle the '--no-grafts' command line option:
[0001-deploy-Honor-no-grafts.patch (text/x-patch, inline)]
From a9af4a0404d9cec29ed200c2fa6a6fb160f6babb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?=E5=AE=8B=E6=96=87=E6=AD=A6?= <iyzsong <at> member.fsf.org>
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 12:45:34 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] deploy: Honor '--no-grafts'.

* guix/scripts/deploy.scm (guix-deploy): Parameterize '%graft?'.
---
 guix/scripts/deploy.scm | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/guix/scripts/deploy.scm b/guix/scripts/deploy.scm
index 978cfb2a81..3acd32eaa7 100644
--- a/guix/scripts/deploy.scm
+++ b/guix/scripts/deploy.scm
@@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
   #:use-module (guix scripts build)
   #:use-module (guix store)
   #:use-module (guix ui)
+  #:use-module (guix grafts)
   #:use-module (ice-9 format)
   #:use-module (srfi srfi-1)
   #:use-module (srfi srfi-37)
@@ -80,5 +81,6 @@ Perform the deployment specified by FILE.\n"))
       (set-build-options-from-command-line store opts)
       (for-each (lambda (machine)
                   (info (G_ "deploying to ~a...") (machine-display-name machine))
-                  (run-with-store store (deploy-machine machine)))
+                  (parameterize ((%graft? (assq-ref opts 'graft?)))
+                    (run-with-store store (deploy-machine machine))))
                 machines))))
-- 
2.19.2

[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]

And '--system', so I can deploy a "i686-linux" from my "x86_64-linux":
[0002-deploy-Handle-the-system-command-line-option.patch (text/x-patch, inline)]
From 192f96a3fa4342765db919006c35cdeb1774b62f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?=E5=AE=8B=E6=96=87=E6=AD=A6?= <iyzsong <at> member.fsf.org>
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 12:51:45 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] deploy: Handle the '--system' command line option.

* guix/scripts/deploy.scm (show-help): Add help for '--system'.
(%options): Add '-s' and '--system'.
(guix-deploy): Parameterize %current-system.
---
 guix/scripts/deploy.scm | 12 ++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/guix/scripts/deploy.scm b/guix/scripts/deploy.scm
index 3acd32eaa7..52bba3f3bf 100644
--- a/guix/scripts/deploy.scm
+++ b/guix/scripts/deploy.scm
@@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
   #:use-module (guix scripts build)
   #:use-module (guix store)
   #:use-module (guix ui)
+  #:use-module (guix utils)
   #:use-module (guix grafts)
   #:use-module (ice-9 format)
   #:use-module (srfi srfi-1)
@@ -41,6 +42,8 @@
 (define (show-help)
   (display (G_ "Usage: guix deploy [OPTION] FILE...
 Perform the deployment specified by FILE.\n"))
+  (display (G_ "
+  -s, --system=SYSTEM    attempt to build for SYSTEM--e.g., \"i686-linux\""))
   (show-build-options-help)
   (newline)
   (display (G_ "
@@ -55,10 +58,14 @@ Perform the deployment specified by FILE.\n"))
                  (lambda args
                    (show-help)
                    (exit 0)))
+         (option '(#\s "system") #t #f
+                 (lambda (opt name arg result)
+                   (alist-cons 'system arg
+                               (alist-delete 'system result eq?))))
          %standard-build-options))
 
 (define %default-options
-  '((system . ,(%current-system))
+  `((system . ,(%current-system))
     (substitutes? . #t)
     (build-hook? . #t)
     (graft? . #t)
@@ -81,6 +88,7 @@ Perform the deployment specified by FILE.\n"))
       (set-build-options-from-command-line store opts)
       (for-each (lambda (machine)
                   (info (G_ "deploying to ~a...") (machine-display-name machine))
-                  (parameterize ((%graft? (assq-ref opts 'graft?)))
+                  (parameterize ((%current-system (assq-ref opts 'system))
+                                 (%graft? (assq-ref opts 'graft?)))
                     (run-with-store store (deploy-machine machine))))
                 machines))))
-- 
2.19.2

[Message part 5 (text/plain, inline)]
Or better we can add a 'system' field to the <machine> record, so we can
deploy a list of machines with different 'system'.  Currently a
<machine> has 'system' as a field for the <operating-system>, so where
to put this machine/arch 'system'...

Information forwarded to guix-patches <at> gnu.org:
bug#36738; Package guix-patches. (Mon, 22 Jul 2019 16:51:01 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #8 received at 36738 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: zerodaysfordays <at> sdf.lonestar.org (Jakob L. Kreuze)
To: iyzsong <at> member.fsf.org (宋文武)
Cc: Christopher Lemmer Webber <cwebber <at> dustycloud.org>, 36738 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>, "Thompson, 
 David" <dthompson2 <at> worcester.edu>
Subject: Re: [bug#36738] [PATCH] guix deploy: Support '--no-grafts' and
 '--system'
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 12:48:01 -0400
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Hello Wenwu,
iyzsong <at> member.fsf.org (宋文武) writes:

> Hello, this patch handle the '--no-grafts' command line option:
> ...
> And '--system', so I can deploy a "i686-linux" from my "x86_64-linux":

These patches look good to me, thank you!

Ludo, Dave, Chris, any additional comments?

> Or better we can add a 'system' field to the <machine> record, so we
> can deploy a list of machines with different 'system'. Currently a
> <machine> has 'system' as a field for the <operating-system>, so where
> to put this machine/arch 'system'...

Great idea. I think that continuing to call the machine's
<operating-system> 'system' would be confusing if we introduced the
notion of a target architecture, because we use "system" to refer to the
target architecture in the rest of Guix's command-line tools. Maybe it
would make sense to rename the <operating-system> field to 'os' or
something similar, and use the 'system' field to specify the target
architecture instead? Any thoughs?

Regards,
Jakob
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to guix-patches <at> gnu.org:
bug#36738; Package guix-patches. (Mon, 22 Jul 2019 22:49:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #11 received at 36738 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: zerodaysfordays <at> sdf.lonestar.org (Jakob L. Kreuze)
To: iyzsong <at> member.fsf.org (宋文武)
Cc: Christopher Lemmer Webber <cwebber <at> dustycloud.org>, 36738 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>, "Thompson, 
 David" <dthompson2 <at> worcester.edu>
Subject: Re: [bug#36738] [PATCH] guix deploy: Support '--no-grafts' and
 '--system'
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 18:46:06 -0400
zerodaysfordays <at> sdf.lonestar.org (Jakob L. Kreuze) writes:

> Great idea. I think that continuing to call the machine's
> <operating-system> 'system' would be confusing if we introduced the
> notion of a target architecture, because we use "system" to refer to
> the target architecture in the rest of Guix's command-line tools.
> Maybe it would make sense to rename the <operating-system> field to
> 'os' or something similar, and use the 'system' field to specify the
> target architecture instead? Any thoughs?

Actually, I had a thought. Why should we make this explicit, when we
could take an implicit approach and identify the target's architecture
with 'remote-eval'? Ideally, we'll be probing the machines anyway to
implement safety checks on the <operating-system> declaration, so why
not just add this to our list of pre-deployment tests?

Regards,
Jakob




Information forwarded to guix-patches <at> gnu.org:
bug#36738; Package guix-patches. (Tue, 23 Jul 2019 16:45:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #14 received at 36738 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Lemmer Webber <cwebber <at> dustycloud.org>
To: "Jakob L. Kreuze" <zerodaysfordays <at> sdf.lonestar.org>
Cc: 36738 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 宋文武 <iyzsong <at> member.fsf.org>,
 "Thompson, David" <dthompson2 <at> worcester.edu>,
 Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [bug#36738] [PATCH] guix deploy: Support '--no-grafts' and
 '--system'
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 12:44:16 -0400
Jakob L. Kreuze writes:

> Hello Wenwu,
> iyzsong <at> member.fsf.org (宋文武) writes:
>
>> Hello, this patch handle the '--no-grafts' command line option:
>> ...
>> And '--system', so I can deploy a "i686-linux" from my "x86_64-linux":
>
> These patches look good to me, thank you!
>
> Ludo, Dave, Chris, any additional comments?
>
>> Or better we can add a 'system' field to the <machine> record, so we
>> can deploy a list of machines with different 'system'. Currently a
>> <machine> has 'system' as a field for the <operating-system>, so where
>> to put this machine/arch 'system'...
>
> Great idea. I think that continuing to call the machine's
> <operating-system> 'system' would be confusing if we introduced the
> notion of a target architecture, because we use "system" to refer to the
> target architecture in the rest of Guix's command-line tools. Maybe it
> would make sense to rename the <operating-system> field to 'os' or
> something similar, and use the 'system' field to specify the target
> architecture instead? Any thoughs?

I'm fine with a rename to "os"




Information forwarded to guix-patches <at> gnu.org:
bug#36738; Package guix-patches. (Tue, 23 Jul 2019 16:46:01 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #17 received at 36738 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Lemmer Webber <cwebber <at> dustycloud.org>
To: "Jakob L. Kreuze" <zerodaysfordays <at> sdf.lonestar.org>
Cc: 36738 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 宋文武 <iyzsong <at> member.fsf.org>,
 "Thompson, David" <dthompson2 <at> worcester.edu>,
 Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [bug#36738] [PATCH] guix deploy: Support '--no-grafts' and
 '--system'
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 12:45:46 -0400
Jakob L. Kreuze writes:

> zerodaysfordays <at> sdf.lonestar.org (Jakob L. Kreuze) writes:
>
>> Great idea. I think that continuing to call the machine's
>> <operating-system> 'system' would be confusing if we introduced the
>> notion of a target architecture, because we use "system" to refer to
>> the target architecture in the rest of Guix's command-line tools.
>> Maybe it would make sense to rename the <operating-system> field to
>> 'os' or something similar, and use the 'system' field to specify the
>> target architecture instead? Any thoughs?
>
> Actually, I had a thought. Why should we make this explicit, when we
> could take an implicit approach and identify the target's architecture
> with 'remote-eval'? Ideally, we'll be probing the machines anyway to
> implement safety checks on the <operating-system> declaration, so why
> not just add this to our list of pre-deployment tests?
>
> Regards,
> Jakob

Maybe a good idea... let me think.  Is there any case where we start
taking actions *before* we might probe a machine that we can think of?

How would we also probe it?  Is there a chance of our probing behaving
incorrectly?  That would also be bad, if so.

Another route is to have the user specify what architecture they think
the machine has, and instead the probing is a "safety check"?




Information forwarded to guix-patches <at> gnu.org:
bug#36738; Package guix-patches. (Tue, 23 Jul 2019 17:06:01 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #20 received at 36738 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Thompson, David" <dthompson2 <at> worcester.edu>
To: "Jakob L. Kreuze" <zerodaysfordays <at> sdf.lonestar.org>
Cc: Christopher Lemmer Webber <cwebber <at> dustycloud.org>, 36738 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 宋文武 <iyzsong <at> member.fsf.org>,
 Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [bug#36738] [PATCH] guix deploy: Support '--no-grafts' and
 '--system'
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 13:05:01 -0400
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 6:48 PM Jakob L. Kreuze
<zerodaysfordays <at> sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>
> zerodaysfordays <at> sdf.lonestar.org (Jakob L. Kreuze) writes:
>
> > Great idea. I think that continuing to call the machine's
> > <operating-system> 'system' would be confusing if we introduced the
> > notion of a target architecture, because we use "system" to refer to
> > the target architecture in the rest of Guix's command-line tools.
> > Maybe it would make sense to rename the <operating-system> field to
> > 'os' or something similar, and use the 'system' field to specify the
> > target architecture instead? Any thoughs?
>
> Actually, I had a thought. Why should we make this explicit, when we
> could take an implicit approach and identify the target's architecture
> with 'remote-eval'? Ideally, we'll be probing the machines anyway to
> implement safety checks on the <operating-system> declaration, so why
> not just add this to our list of pre-deployment tests?

I don't see a compelling reason for the architecture to be a part of
the machine data type at this time.  I'd like to avoid such low-level
details if possible because I don't think they will translate well to
more complex methods of deployment.

- Dave




Information forwarded to guix-patches <at> gnu.org:
bug#36738; Package guix-patches. (Tue, 23 Jul 2019 19:37:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #23 received at 36738 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: zerodaysfordays <at> sdf.lonestar.org (Jakob L. Kreuze)
To: Christopher Lemmer Webber <cwebber <at> dustycloud.org>
Cc: 36738 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 宋文武 <iyzsong <at> member.fsf.org>,
 "Thompson, David" <dthompson2 <at> worcester.edu>,
 Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [bug#36738] [PATCH] guix deploy: Support '--no-grafts' and
 '--system'
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:33:20 -0400
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Hi Chris,

Christopher Lemmer Webber <cwebber <at> dustycloud.org> writes:

> Maybe a good idea... let me think. Is there any case where we start
> taking actions *before* we might probe a machine that we can think of?
>
> How would we also probe it? Is there a chance of our probing behaving
> incorrectly? That would also be bad, if so.

None that come to mind right now, and if there are any, I don't think
they would be affected by the probing -- aside from doing work that
would get thrown out when the script errors out.

As for the safety of probing, none of the tests I intend on implementing
are effectful. It would be equivalents for 'check-mapped-devices',
'check-file-system-availability', and 'check-initrd-modules', all of
which do little beyond looking at the devices available on the system,
and now a check that would read '%current-system'.

> Another route is to have the user specify what architecture they think
> the machine has, and instead the probing is a "safety check"?

That'd work too, but I feel it's better to avoid putting an unnecessary
burden on the user.

Regards,
Jakob
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to guix-patches <at> gnu.org:
bug#36738; Package guix-patches. (Tue, 23 Jul 2019 19:39:01 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #26 received at 36738 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: zerodaysfordays <at> sdf.lonestar.org (Jakob L. Kreuze)
To: "Thompson\, David" <dthompson2 <at> worcester.edu>
Cc: Christopher Lemmer Webber <cwebber <at> dustycloud.org>, 36738 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 宋文武 <iyzsong <at> member.fsf.org>,
 Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [bug#36738] [PATCH] guix deploy: Support '--no-grafts' and
 '--system'
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:35:47 -0400
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
"Thompson, David" <dthompson2 <at> worcester.edu> writes:

> I don't see a compelling reason for the architecture to be a part of
> the machine data type at this time. I'd like to avoid such low-level
> details if possible because I don't think they will translate well to
> more complex methods of deployment.

A good point. I'll see about having this as an environment-specific
check.

Regards,
Jakob
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to guix-patches <at> gnu.org:
bug#36738; Package guix-patches. (Tue, 23 Jul 2019 21:30:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #29 received at 36738 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: zerodaysfordays <at> sdf.lonestar.org (Jakob L. Kreuze)
Cc: Christopher Lemmer Webber <cwebber <at> dustycloud.org>, 36738 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 宋文武 <iyzsong <at> member.fsf.org>, "Thompson, 
 David" <dthompson2 <at> worcester.edu>
Subject: Re: [bug#36738] [PATCH] guix deploy: Support '--no-grafts' and
 '--system'
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 23:29:50 +0200
Hello,

zerodaysfordays <at> sdf.lonestar.org (Jakob L. Kreuze) skribis:

> Hello Wenwu,
> iyzsong <at> member.fsf.org (宋文武) writes:
>
>> Hello, this patch handle the '--no-grafts' command line option:
>> ...
>> And '--system', so I can deploy a "i686-linux" from my "x86_64-linux":
>
> These patches look good to me, thank you!
>
> Ludo, Dave, Chris, any additional comments?

Fine with me!

I agree with Dave that we should avoid adding a ‘system-type’ field to
<machine>, at least for now.  Instead, we should just honor
(%current-system).

Thanks,
Ludo’.




Information forwarded to guix-patches <at> gnu.org:
bug#36738; Package guix-patches. (Tue, 23 Jul 2019 22:00:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #32 received at 36738 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
To: cwebber <at> dustycloud.org
Cc: 36738 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, "Jakob L. Kreuze" <zerodaysfordays <at> sdf.lonestar.org>,
 宋文武 <iyzsong <at> member.fsf.org>
Subject: Re: [bug#36738] [PATCH] guix deploy: Support '--no-grafts' and
 '--system'
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 23:59:11 +0200
Christopher Lemmer Webber <cwebber <at> dustycloud.org> writes:

> Jakob L. Kreuze writes:
>
>> zerodaysfordays <at> sdf.lonestar.org (Jakob L. Kreuze) writes:
>>
>>> Great idea. I think that continuing to call the machine's
>>> <operating-system> 'system' would be confusing if we introduced the
>>> notion of a target architecture, because we use "system" to refer to
>>> the target architecture in the rest of Guix's command-line tools.
>>> Maybe it would make sense to rename the <operating-system> field to
>>> 'os' or something similar, and use the 'system' field to specify the
>>> target architecture instead? Any thoughs?
>>
>> Actually, I had a thought. Why should we make this explicit, when we
>> could take an implicit approach and identify the target's architecture
>> with 'remote-eval'? Ideally, we'll be probing the machines anyway to
>> implement safety checks on the <operating-system> declaration, so why
>> not just add this to our list of pre-deployment tests?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jakob
>
> Maybe a good idea... let me think.  Is there any case where we start
> taking actions *before* we might probe a machine that we can think of?

I don’t know if this qualifies, but if “guix deploy” were to *create* a
machine (e.g. on EC2 via the Guile AWS library) it wouldn’t be able to
probe it first.  But in that case we would have full control over what
the target would be, so no probing would be required.

--
Ricardo





Information forwarded to guix-patches <at> gnu.org:
bug#36738; Package guix-patches. (Wed, 24 Jul 2019 00:15:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #35 received at 36738 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: zerodaysfordays <at> sdf.lonestar.org (Jakob L. Kreuze)
To: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
Cc: cwebber <at> dustycloud.org, 36738 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 宋文武 <iyzsong <at> member.fsf.org>
Subject: Re: [bug#36738] [PATCH] guix deploy: Support '--no-grafts' and
 '--system'
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 20:11:59 -0400
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Hi Ricardo,

Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net> writes:

> I don’t know if this qualifies, but if “guix deploy” were to *create*
> a machine (e.g. on EC2 via the Guile AWS library) it wouldn’t be able
> to probe it first. But in that case we would have full control over
> what the target would be, so no probing would be required.

Ah, good point. I suppose didn't think about this all the way through in
my response -- we wouldn't be able to probe an unprovisioned machine.
But your point gives me even more confidence in the decision to deduce
target architecture at runtime and have that as an environment-specific
check.

Thanks for chiming in!

Regards,
Jakob
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Reply sent to iyzsong <at> member.fsf.org (宋文武):
You have taken responsibility. (Wed, 24 Jul 2019 12:37:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Notification sent to iyzsong <at> member.fsf.org (宋文武):
bug acknowledged by developer. (Wed, 24 Jul 2019 12:37:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #40 received at 36738-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: iyzsong <at> member.fsf.org (宋文武)
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Christopher Lemmer Webber <cwebber <at> dustycloud.org>,
 36738-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 "Jakob L. Kreuze" <zerodaysfordays <at> sdf.lonestar.org>, "Thompson,
 David" <dthompson2 <at> worcester.edu>
Subject: Re: [bug#36738] [PATCH] guix deploy: Support '--no-grafts' and
 '--system'
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 20:36:11 +0800
Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:

> Hello,
>
> zerodaysfordays <at> sdf.lonestar.org (Jakob L. Kreuze) skribis:
>
>> Hello Wenwu,
>> iyzsong <at> member.fsf.org (宋文武) writes:
>>
>>> Hello, this patch handle the '--no-grafts' command line option:
>>> ...
>>> And '--system', so I can deploy a "i686-linux" from my "x86_64-linux":
>>
>> These patches look good to me, thank you!
>>
>> Ludo, Dave, Chris, any additional comments?
>
> Fine with me!
>
> I agree with Dave that we should avoid adding a ‘system-type’ field to
> <machine>, at least for now.  Instead, we should just honor
> (%current-system).
>
> Thanks,
> Ludo’.

Pushed, thanks for the reviews!




bug archived. Request was from Debbugs Internal Request <help-debbugs <at> gnu.org> to internal_control <at> debbugs.gnu.org. (Thu, 22 Aug 2019 11:24:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

This bug report was last modified 4 years and 220 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.