| Message ID | 20190423151702.05258473@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
Hi everybody! I've been working on these patches and I've been able to generate a derivation with the format expected by Grub during bootloading, use it in the grub.cfg file. I removed the test for the folder inside the configuration file and added a check for the "locale" output during the file generation. Maybe it is not quite elegant, but I'm open to ideas. Now there are 4 patches instead of 3. What do you think? Best regards, Miguel PS: I CC'ed the mailing list too looking for other ideas. El Tue, 23 Apr 2019 15:17:02 +0200 Miguel <rosen644835@gmail.com> escribió: > Hello Guix! > > As a Grub translator, I've been hacking a little bit in order to > provide locale information to Grub. I use Guix in a daily basis, as my > main computer operating system, and I this is a key step in order to > provide a better experience to the all kind of users, who may do not > know other languages than their native one. > > My current idea, implemented in the following patches, is something > along these lines: > 1. Store locale information into boot-parameters file. This patch > contains a quite silly test that requires wiser review. > 2. Provide this information to the bootloader at the configuration > time. This, ideally, should provided at installation time too, but > I'm stuck seeing my first messages in english when grub asks for the > whole-disk encryption passphrase as I don't know how to create a > working core.img yet. > 3. Add a snippet to the generated grub.cfg file with the language > information. Some configurations, as /boot in a separate partition, > does not work with this patch, but take it as a proof of concept. > > Lacking points: > 1. No support for other bootloaders yet. I don't know any of them > too much, but I'm unaware of their localization support. > 2. Grub installation process is not transactional enough. I have > some ideas for that, to be discussed in another thread, although one > key point is tightly related with this topic: /boot/grub/locale > generation. Having this folder as a derivation would make explicit > the dependency, but I have to work more on this and I'm open to any > ideas. > > WDYT? > > Best regards, > Miguel
Hi Miguel, Miguel <rosen644835@gmail.com> skribis: > As a Grub translator, I've been hacking a little bit in order to > provide locale information to Grub. I use Guix in a daily basis, as my > main computer operating system, and I this is a key step in order to > provide a better experience to the all kind of users, who may do not > know other languages than their native one. Thanks a lot for this work. FWIW, I’m holding off review and integration after 1.0, but I’m happy if someone else reviews :-), and I’ll be really happy to see it in master once 1.0 is out. Ludo’.
Hi Ludo’, El Mon, 29 Apr 2019 09:56:25 +0200 Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> escribió: > Hi Miguel, > > Thanks a lot for this work. I've been quite silent about this because I wanted to solve the issue with .mo files in a better way, but my current understanding is that the best way to go with that is to make grub installation (store-)reproducible and removing /boot altogether, so I'll open a different thread on the mailing list about that. For the moment, the patches following this mail rely on the installation of /boot/grub/locale, usually generated by grub-install. The generated grub.cfg scriptlet enables the use case for /boot in a different partition found in many other distributions (which breaks the boot when /gnu/store is encrypted in a different partition, I'm going to fill a bug for that too). I've tested them on the following machine configurations, on top of commit 5f760515c8: - grub-efi on x86_64-gnu-linux: * Encrypted partition for the whole disk. * Separate "/boot" (ext4) and "/" (ext4 and btrfs) partitions. - grub-pc on x86_64-gnu-linux: * Same as grub-efi, plus * Encrypted and different "/boot" and "/" partitions, typing manually in the console "cryptomount (hdX,msdosX)" with the "/" partition to allow grub loading the kernel image. > FWIW, I’m holding off review and integration after 1.0, but I’m happy > if someone else reviews :-), I'm CCing the list to bring some attention onto it, I think it's on-topic enough to worth a try. The hardest part for review is the new test case, because I wanted to be 100% sure I didn't break anything. As you can see, the tested code didn't need almost any change, although I've made some changes on the test case from the last set of patches. > and I’ll be really happy to see it in master once 1.0 is out. I wish we'll see it in master soon. Best regards, Miguel