GNU bug report logs - #72457
[PATCH 00/15] Rewrite bootloader subsystem.

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Lilah Tascheter <lilah <at> lunabee.space>
To: 72457 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Herman Rimm <herman <at> rimm.ee>
Subject: [bug#72457] [PATCH v5 00/15] Rewrite bootloader subsystem.
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2024 17:20:05 -0500

> I dislike that so few patches change from revision to revision,
> according to the diffstat.
yeah, didn't feel the best to have to re-send the whole series for each
small change.

> I would like to submit a rewritten patch series.  Basically, it would
> consist of patches #4, #6, #12, #13, and #14.
since efi's getting split out, would it make sense to split #6 out too?
though, that could pose issues if it gets forgotten and the others get
merged. your choice!

> I want to submit #1, #2, #3, #5 and #15 to issue #73202
so, #73202'd end up being a general cleanup of the current bootloader
system, right? I feel #2 wouldn't quite fit there, seeing as it just
adds the infastructure needed for #4.

> #7, #8, #9, #10 (excl. efibootmgr) and #11 to #68524.
I'll send an unmerge to #68524 then!

> Parts of patch #4 which fit better with #73202 or function standalone
> would be submitted to #73202.  Finally, #4 will be split into seven
> to ten patches, hopefully making referring to changes easier and
> review less demanding.
this sounds great! but,
good fucking luck splitting up #4. a ton of the changes are
interconnected, and it'll be a pain to do so if you don't want some
commits to just not compile. if you can pull it off, that'd be amazing!

> [1]: https://codeberg.org/herman_rimm/guix
typo in gnu/build/bootloader.scm "thtat", also
gnu/system/install.scm(embedded-installation-os) operating-system-
bootloader's default is '(), not #f. otherwise, this looks great!!!

I'm also thinking now, since you mentioned the operating-system-
bootloader sanitizer in a previous email, it'd probably be a good idea
to expand the sanitizer to detect for 'part type targets too. a simple
/dev/.*[0-9] regex should work well? I can write a quick patch up for
you, or you can just include that when making the new patch series if
you'd prefer?

> [2]: ...
looks like the failure here was caused by cpan failing to build, which
shouldn't be (hopefully isn't) a result of this patchset. what does the
build log mentioned say?

thanks so much for all the help, by the way :)
- lilah

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.