Re: btrfs and subvolumes for root

[maze]

Am 2017-08-06 05:46, schrieb Fredrik Salomonsson:

Hello Guix,

I'm testing out setting up a dual boot between GuixSD and Arch. I've
no idea how much each one will take on disk. I decided to try out
btrfs and subvolumes for the layout.

But I'm having some issues booting the thing.

My disk layout right now is:
sda
  sda1  1MB BIOS boot
  sda2  4G  swap
  sda3 228.9GB  btrfs

then subvolumes:
sda3/
  __current/guixsd-root
  __current/arch-root
  __current/boot
  __current/home

section from my config.scm, which is based on my old config (old one
is attached).

(file-systems (cons* (file-system
   (device "root")
   (title 'label)
   (mount-point "/boot")
   (options
"defaults,discard,compress=lzo,space_cache,autodefrag,subvol=__current/boot")
   (dependecies mapped-devices))
;; repeat for guixsd-root and home but with correct value for subvol
)

guix system init worked fine but when booting it fails to locate the
bzImage. Which I assume is because it doesn't know that the root is in
a subvolume.

Long story short. How do I add rootflags to GuixSD's grub menu entry?
Need to add "rootflags=subvol=__current/guixsd-root" to the
linux-arguments. Might be an issue of having boot as a subvolume as
well.

Thanks

--

s/Fred[re]+i[ck]+/Fredrik/g


Hello Fredrik,

I am having the same problem. Adjusting the kernel parameters for the 
GuixSD kernel seems currently not supported.  Looking at the source code 
though it looks like this could be achieved via manipulating the 
"bootloader-configuration-menu-entries" list. (Still a scheme noob!)


That said, it would generally make sense to make this configurable IMO.

Best
Martin

Re: Grub error: Failed to get canonical path of 'none'

[Eduardo Thales]

Thanks a lot! Managed to install successfully now

Em 1 de set de 2017 19:02, "Tobias Geerinckx-Rice"  escreveu:

Eduardo,

Eduardo Thales wrote on 01/09/17 at 23:22:
> I'm trying to install Guix SD with Grub on UEFI and my stuck in this
error:
> //gnu/store/4c7x0ji4mni5dayf8ig9rssk50pjims1g-grub-efi-2.02/sbin/grub-
install:
> error: failed to get canonical path of 'none'.

[snip]

Here's the culprit:

> (bootloader (grub-configuration (grub grub-efi)
>  (device "/dev/sda1")))

The bootloader code was overhauled after Guix 0.13. The syntax is now:

  (bootloader (bootloader-configuration
   (bootloader grub-efi-bootloader)
   (target "/boot/efi"))) ; usually correct, but verify

> I tried to follow what I found in the Reference Manual.

It seems you're consulting an outdated manual that doesn't match the
version of Guix you're invoking to reconfigure your system.

Kind regards,

T G-R

[ANN] Emacs-Guix 0.3.3

[Alex Kost]

Hello, I have released Emacs-Guix (Emacs interface for GNU Guix) version
0.3.3, and updated 'emacs-guix' Guix package.

This release provides some small bug fixes and tweaks to keep it in-sync
with the current Guix code-base.  Also, it provides 2 new features:

1. A way to look at "search paths" environment variables:

   In "M-x guix-profiles" you can press "E" key to see the analog of:

 guix package --search-paths=... --profile=...

   (You can mark several profiles with "m" key before pressing "E" to see
   the combined search paths).

   Analogously, you can press "E" in a list of generations (for example,
   in "M-x guix-generations").

2. The new "info" interface for profiles: Press "RET" (or "i") in the
   list of profiles to see it.  Nothing fancy there; similarly to
   "Generation Info", it is just an alternative way to look at available
   functionality for profiles.

-- 
Alex

Re: Grub error: Failed to get canonical path of 'none'

[Quiliro Ordonez Baca]

Tobias Geerinckx-Rice  writes:

>> I tried to follow what I found in the Reference Manual.
>
> It seems you're consulting an outdated manual that doesn't match the
> version of Guix you're invoking to reconfigure your system.

I have just checked the info page and the old configuration is still there.

Re: Grub error: Failed to get canonical path of 'none'

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice]

Quiliro,

Quiliro Ordonez Baca wrote on 02/09/17 at 21:52:
> I have just checked the info page and the old configuration is still there.

Hm, not here. Or I'm not searching for the same thing you mean.

Could your share the offending section and snippet?

Kind regards,

T G-R