Hi T G-R, On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 16:40:56 +0200 Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <[email protected]> wrote:
> The installer's now expects exactly one "GuixSD" partition when booting > — at least on UEFI. If the GRUB finds two, the GRUB will randomly > choose. In my case, the GRUB chose a frozen system. Sorry! > The real problem here is that we're using a label as a UUID. I agree. Unfortunately Guix UUIDs are difficult to use consistently or I would have changed it over to begin with. > (define root-label > ;; Volume name of the root file system. Since we don't know which > device > ;; will hold it, we use the volume name to find it (using the UUID would > ;; be even better, but somewhat less convenient.) > (normalize-label "GuixSD")) > > I like that understatement. I'm not sure how to go about creating a > reproducible almost-UUID based on the store hash and passing it to all > the right places in a reasonably non-horrible manner either, random > hacker. And it would mean even more work and testing after all the > heroic effort on the new installer image + UEFI support by Danny, > Marius, and others. Yeah, having the UUID actually be derived from the store hash would be good. I think for now having a random UUID be generated would be fine too. > Until it does happen, I suggest we change the name to "GuixSD-image"[2]. > Still fragile, but not the PR fail that ‘don't call your GuixSD file > system GuixSD or it will break GuixSD’ would be. I think for the time being that's a good workaround. But I think we should get the UUIDs for booting working. > [1]: > https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/commit/?id=651de2bdb5fd451c50933dcf8d647d470d826261 The actual reason I had to change it is because of the dashes (which are not valid in ECMA-6 IRV). > [2]: Or whatever. "GuixSD_installer" ? Well anyway, just pick one, doesn't matter much which, except that the characters have to be out of [A-Za-z0-9_] (will be uppercased for ISO-9660) because of ECMA-119 Appendix A (ECMA-6 IRV). >I remember someone (Danny?) calling "-image" an > implementation detail. I think it's a description of the end result. Yeah, that was me. I don't understand how an actual operating system on a drive is an image. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, dunno, but I think an image is something that is made up by light rays on a screen, not the real object. In the case of computing an image is a backup file of a drive, not what is on the drive to begin with. Also, even if it were an image, the image shouldn't say "<foo> image" in the image itself. A mirror which doesn't add anything to your image when you look into it, either :)
