Hey On 03/24/16 15:22, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > So, let’s say PID isolation will be optional, and we can always adjust > later on. Sounds good? > > Manolis, make sure to read about how the various Hurd servers provides > these parts of POSIX personality: file systems, UIDs, PIDs, networking, > and so on.
Already started. :-) > As far as code integration code, I think we won’t bother syncing this > work with nix-daemon; guix-daemon has already diverged, and for instance > it does not have OS X sandbox support. > > You’ll have to arrange to have the Hurd-specific bits in a separate > file, so that ‘#ifdef HURD’ are not scattered all over the place. > > This is C(++) as you know. WDYT, Manolis? I have to start studying the daemon's code more. From what I know the part that handles builds is in libstore/build.cc. I will start there. I think I can do it. >>> The main question is whether you should implement build isolation in >>> guix-daemon, in which case that would leave little time for the GuixSD >>> parts. I think I would rather let you focus on the GuixSD stuff as you >>> wrote, but I’d like to hear what the Hurd folks think. >> >> I consider isolation more important. > > OK. Isolation first it is then. > So, Manolis, what about reframing the agenda such that porting > guix-daemon to GNU/Hurd comes first (I’d consider it roughly half of the > programming effort), followed by GuixSD stuff? > Current objectives then: 1) Achieve build isolation in the daemon on the Hurd. 2) Modify Guix so it can produce a working image, while isolating any cases of Linux assumptions. 3) Boot to GuixSD Ludo, Justus do you agree with this? Manolis
