Re: GNU Guix & GuixSD 0.16.0 released

[Giovanni Biscuolo]

Hi all,

thanks for your patience, I realize this could be the N-th time
arguments like this are discussed here

and thank you Ludovic and Ricardo for clarifying

Ricardo Wurmus <address@hidden> writes:

>> does this mean that "guix system" is capable of
>> instantiating/reconfiguring an operating-system declaration (services
>> included) even outside GuixSD?
>
> “guix system init” is what I used to transform foreign distros into
> GuixSD.  It does not need to be run on a GuixSD installer system.

wow! you dumbed me :-O

you mean: live?
...I mean "sudo guix system init /etc/config.scm / && sudo reboot" ?

I have to test this installation path (including what happens if
anything goes wrong after reboot): it's awesome

IMHO this method deserves a dedicated section in 6.1 "system
installation" chapter of our manual, something titled "Advanced system
installation"

>> do we need a FAQ on https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/, the first may be
>> "What is the difference between GuixSD and Guix"?
>
> I’d prefer not to strengthen the distinction at all (which would be a
> side-effect of documenting it)

...and we want purely funcional documentation... ehrm :-)

seriously: I agree with your preference not to strengthen this
distinction, but we should find a way to "document this discussion"
(possibly already made more than once in the past)

I admit I still have to read all the manual (I started from chapter 6,
then went back to 2 and now studying 4 and 5) but this "class of
arguments" are missing: or did I miss them?

I'm sure this have already been discussed in the past, but what about to
collect interesting notes already made (I know some, sure I'm missing
many) in an official "wiki-like" documentation?

> and rather smoothen the bump between the
> “full Guix system” and just “Guix on a foreign distro”.

it definitely makes sense: +1

AFAIU the "only bump" to get a full Guix *host* system is to
replace PID1 with shepherd (done by guix system init), right?

> “guix system vm” breaks the distinction: it is a full Guix system but
> built on top of a foreign distro.

*O*M*G*: you dumbed me twice now =-O

this is obviously valid for "guix system container", too: right?

I was searching for a method to bootstrap a cointainer (in contrast to a
full VM) with a full Guix system using Debian with lxc... but the
answer is "don't use lxc", use "guix system container" instead

this will _drammatically_ boost my ability to deploy *native* Guix
system services on foregin distros, possibly _migrating_ the ones run by
foregin distro to a Guix system container

moreover, "guix system vm" IMHO is a much more powerful method to
install and run a VM [1] than the currently documented one:
https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/manual/en/html_node/Installing-GuixSD-in-a-VM.html
and 
https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/manual/en/html_node/Running-GuixSD-in-a-VM.html#Running-GuixSD-in-a-VM

what do you think about this?

> Using the term “Guix system” is clearer for all but one case where the
> “guix system” commands are used.

I don't fully understand this: what is that one case, plz?

thanks!
Giovanni

[1] often needed on a foregin distro for testing or migration purposes,
like in my case

-- 
Giovanni Biscuolo

Xelera IT Infrastructures

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature