Re: GuixSD bootable ISO-9669 image

[Ludovic Courtès]

Danny Milosavljevic <address@hidden> skribis:

> Hi Ludo,
>
> On Tue, 02 May 2017 23:11:05 +0200
> address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) wrote:
>> OK.  Are these “UUIDs” 160-bit long like the “real” ones?  If they are,
>> I’d suggest ignoring the problem for now.
>
> No, unfortunately not.  There's also a similar problem in the FAT support in 
> the same module.
>
> I think Linux doesn't actually mean real DCE uuids when they say "uuid", so I 
> don't think pretending that they are real uuids is going to be useful 
> (because at some point control passes to /dev/disk/by-uuid, parted or grub - 
> which interpret uuids like they want - which isn't necessarily as real uuids).
>
> So I think the best course of action is to drop the real DCE uuids entirely 
> and make uuids be free-form strings - like these other programs already 
> decided...
>
> What do you think?

I’d prefer to add a special ‘iso-9660-uuid’ form similar to ‘uuid’ in
(gnu system file-systems).

That way we could detect that we get a valid UUID at macro-expansion
time or system-instantiation time, rather than end up with an error at
boot time.

WDYT?

Ludo’.