Hello, Tomáš Čech <sleep_wal...@gnu.org> skribis:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 06:09:12PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >>Hello, >> >>Tomáš Čech <sleep_wal...@gnu.org> skribis: >> >>> Ping after week - is there interest in this patch? >> >>I didn’t comment on the patch specifically because I thought my reply >>might make you change your mind. ;-) >> >> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2016-07/msg01241.html > > Thanks for that, I'm still trying to digest that bite. I'm sorry for > being a bit slow on Guile. No problem. Since you pinged, I thought you had digested it. ;-) >>All the packages used by the initrd are automatically part of the >>initrd. The proposed patch would allow people to add unused packages to >>the initrd. > > It is for the packages which you may want to use interactivelly in > case of failure or for some extra initrd hacking you may not want/be > able to write in Guile. > > Features like > - extra authentication > - full disk encryption > - root on NFS > - LVM :) > - ... OK but if you need these packages, for instance because you have a LUKS boot device, they’ll already be in the initrd. No need to manually list them in #:extra-packages. >>Could you explain how/when this would be used? Maybe as commands for >>use by Bournish when it’s used as a rescue shell? > > I agree that it is more for debugging and to balance my inability to > express it in Guile but it lowers the barrier a bit. > > Bournish is too young to rely on it. I miss pipes, accessing files in > different directories or `ls' with wildcards. I can put in minimal > static busybox which is more than sufficient for rescue, problem > analysis or even data recovery. > > I like the idea of Bournish but I'd rather have an alternative > until it is more capable. I agree, but hopefully, you don’t run into Bournish too often? I guess my main concern (again, as a lazy maintainer) is the cost of turning ‘base-initrd’ into a kitchen sink, as discussed in the other thread about #:extra-modules. I would prefer to provide simple tools that people can build upon, like ‘expression->initrd’ or the ‘raw-initrd’ procedure I proposed, than trying to come up with a one-size-fits-all procedure with many parameters. WDYT? Thanks, Ludo’.
