Justus Winter <4win...@informatik.uni-hamburg.de> skribis: > Wait, that sounds like serverboot, doesn't it ? > > It does. I think it was a mistake to abandon it in the first place. > Evidence for that: 1. We now have two copies of the bootscript > parser, once in the kernel, once in boot. 2. We moved non-essential > functionality (with lot's of string parsing) into the kernel. 3. It > makes strong assumptions about the platform, e.g. assumes a bootloader > that can load modules like GRUB does with the multiboot protocol. > > But we don't use some made-up shell-like language, we use a Scheme > interpreter. > > \o/
This is exciting! ;-) > Why is it awesome ? > > (define (bootstrap) > (log "Hurd server bootstrap:") > (bind-root rootfs-task) > [...] > (log ".\n")) > > (catch (panic "Hurd bootstrap failed: " last-exception "\n") > (bootstrap)) We’ve been using this approach in Guix to bootstrap GNU/Linux: all the code to load kernel modules, mount the root file system, switch to the new root, etc. are written in Scheme. And likewise, we get a REPL with a debugger when something goes wrong. > start bootshell: bootshell/TinySCHEME 1.41. Did you consider using a statically-linked Guile? This is what we do in the Linux initrd for Guix, and it’s wonderful. :-) If you take that route, we can make it easier to share code. (And we can adjust Guile as needed, too.) Keep up the good hack! Ludo’.
