Re: wip blog post (v2): running Guix System on ARM

[Julien Lepiller]

Le Thu, 14 Nov 2019 13:12:11 +0100,
Danny Milosavljevic <address@hidden> a écrit :

> Hi Julien,
> 
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 22:21:54 +0100
> Julien Lepiller <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > Hi, attached is a draft for a blog post (or a section in the
> > cookbook) for explaining how to install the Guix System on an ARM
> > board. WDYT?  
> 
> I guess it can't hurt to describe this stuff as it works now, but the
> goal is not to need to do any of this complicated stuff--and there's
> no fundamental reason why one would have to.  There are projects like
> buildroot which have all the u-boot configuration (and more--like the
> partitioning, which also can sometimes have funny requirements, for
> example on Allwinner) that Guix could import to generically install
> Guix on any ARM board. Eventually there will be an importer for those.
> 
> The kernel module situation is awful.  It would be good if we could
> automate it more in the future (if the information is statically
> available in the first place).  If the foreign distribution doesn't
> have it, not much can be done.
> 
> I'm not sure what buildroot does--whether we have kernels with
> different built-in modules for different modules or what?
> 
> Some comments on your draft:
> 
> (1) You absolutely can use an existing u-boot to boot Guix (bugs
> nonwithstanding). Guix only generates "extlinux.conf" and doesn't
> touch the other u-boot config. The default u-boot-bootloader
> installer (as opposed to config installer) is "do nothing".  So your
> existing u-boot (for example in NAND flash) would display a boot menu
> and then you could boot from SSD or SD, for example. If this doesn't
> work, please file a bug report.  Also, the old generations should be
> able to be selected, too.  Doesn't it work?
> 
> FWIW, I'm also using an existing Grub inside Libreboot to boot Guix
> on X86, with exactly the same mechanism (grub.conf generated,
> grub-install not invoked).
> 
> (2) If possible, can you mention that non-exported, non-documented
> variables are subject to change?  I mean I like that "@@" is
> possible, but let's make sure the user knows that it would be better
> to contact us for including his stuff if it's supposed to continue to
> work.

Thank you! attached is a new version of that blog post. I think I'll
convert it to texinfo and add it to the cookbook, instead of making it
a blog post, as we then could change or remove it more easily if we
make progress on this :)

I've changed the first paragraph of the u-boot section and the comment
before using @@. I also fixed a few typos others found. If it looks
good, I'll push the change to master in a few days.