GNU bug report logs - #38253
Volatile? argument seems to be ignored for system disk images

Previous Next

Package: guix;

Reported by: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>

Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 05:09:01 UTC

Severity: normal

Tags: fixed

Done: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>

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 38253 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 38253 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 bug-guix <at> gnu.org:
bug#38253; Package guix. (Mon, 18 Nov 2019 05:09:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.
Acknowledgement sent to Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to bug-guix <at> gnu.org. (Mon, 18 Nov 2019 05:09:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

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

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Jelle Licht <jlicht <at> fsfe.org>
Cc: bug-guix <bug-guix <at> gnu.org>, help-guix <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: Volatile? argument seems to be ignored for system disk images
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 14:08:12 +0900

Jelle Licht <jlicht <at> fsfe.org> writes:

> I am trying to dive into some of the code that goes into generating
> system disk images for guix, and I ran into the following:
>
> It seems that commit 932e1f92404d917a91af28737d6631ec45b56875 did more
> than what the commit log said:
>
>> vm: Make sure disk image initrds load 'usb-storage.ko'.
>>
>> Reported by David Thompson <dthompson2 <at> worcester.edu>.
>>
>> * gnu/system/vm.scm (system-disk-image): Add usb-storage.ko to the
>>   initrd.
>
> This commit effectively made the `#:volatile?' kwarg to
> `system-disk-image' redundant. Should we remove `#:volatile?', or should
> it be passed along instead of #t?
>
> Or am I misunderstanding something subtle here, and is everything as it
> should be?

No, my understanding is the same as yours: it looks like a bug.

Fixed with commit 67ed544212.

Thank you!

Maxim
Added tag(s) fixed. Request was from Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> to control <at> debbugs.gnu.org. (Thu, 28 Nov 2019 05:21:01 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.
bug closed, send any further explanations to 38253 <at> debbugs.gnu.org and Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> Request was from Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> to control <at> debbugs.gnu.org. (Thu, 28 Nov 2019 05:21:01 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.
bug archived. Request was from Debbugs Internal Request <help-debbugs <at> gnu.org> to internal_control <at> debbugs.gnu.org. (Thu, 26 Dec 2019 12:24:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.
This bug report was last modified 4 years and 116 days ago.

Previous Next

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