[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Code sharing between system and home services (was Re: On the naming
From: |
Joshua Branson |
Subject: |
Re: Code sharing between system and home services (was Re: On the naming of System and Home services modules.) |
Date: |
Fri, 24 Sep 2021 11:32:55 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) |
Xinglu Chen <public@yoctocell.xyz> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 23 2021, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Xinglu Chen <public@yoctocell.xyz> skribis:
>>
>>> Some services might be useful to have in both Guix System and Guix Home;
>>> for instance, Guix System currently has a service for configuring
>>> Syncthing, and I think it makes sense to also have one for Guix Home,
>>> this would mean that people not using Guix System (me :-)) could also
>>> have Guix manage Syncthing. With the current approach, we would have to
>>> copy and paste quite a bit of code, and if the Syncthing service for
>>> Guix System changes, then the one for Guix Home might have to change as
>>> well.
>>
>> Silly question, but why do we need to have two different configuration
>> record types in the first place?
>
> The problem is that the configuration records for system and home
> service don’t necessarily have the same fields. The Syncthing service
> for Guix System has a ‘user’ and a ‘group’ field, which is not really of
> any use in Guix Home, as the only user would be the user invoking ‘guix
> home’.
Apologies if I'm speaking for something I know very little
about...Wouldn't it be nice if guix home services would accept a user
and a group field? For the syncthing service, perhaps the user wants to
limit Syncthing's runtime permissions. So instead of running as the
user, the user would run synthing as a different user with less permissions?
Please note it may be much better to just container-ize the synthing
service. Does guix home have that ability?
https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog/2017/running-system-services-in-containers/
>
>> Sharing configuration between Home and System sounds important to me: it
>> means users can easily move services from one to the other, which is
>> pretty big deal. It also means we’d have much less code to maintain.
>
> Agreed, that’s what I would like to see as well.
>
>> Would that be feasible? (Apologies if this has already been
>> discussed!)
>
> Since it might not make sense to have the same records fields for a
> system service and home service, I proposed (in the mail you replied to)
> a ‘define-configuration’ form that would generate a configuration record
> for a system service and optionally one for a home service, without
> having to maintain two records separately.
>
> (define-configuration syncthing-configuration
> (package
> (package syncthing)
> "Syncthing package to use.")
> (arguments
> (list-of-strings ’())
> "Command line arguments to pass to the Syncthing package.")
> (log-flags
> (integer 0)
> "Sum of logging flags.")
> (user
> (maybe-string 'disabled)
> "The user as which the Syncthing service is to be run."
> (home-service? #f)) ; not for Guix Home
> (group
> (string "users")
> "The group as which the Syncthing service is to be run."
> (home-service? #f)) ; likewise ^^
> (home
> (maybe-string 'disabled)
> "Common configuration and data directory.")
> (home-service? #t))
>
> It would generate <syncthing-configuration> and
> <home-syncthing-configuration>. The only difference being that
> <home-syncthing-configuration> doesn’t have a ‘user’ and a ‘group’
> field.
>
> It’s probably going to be quite complicated, so it would be good to get
> some feedback/thoughts on it. Cc Maxim since he has done some work with
> (gnu services configuration).
>
> Also, it’s probably time to properly document (gnu services
> configuration) in the manual. ;-)
>
>> Also, I proposed earlier a possible way to generate a Home service type
>> from the corresponding System service type—or, IOW, to generate a Home
>> service type graph from the System graph. Does that sound feasible?
>
> I am not sure exactly what you mean here, could you elaborate?
>
--
Joshua Branson (jab in #guix)
Sent from Emacs and Gnus
https://gnucode.me
https://video.hardlimit.com/accounts/joshua_branson/video-channels
https://propernaming.org
"You can have whatever you want, as long as you help
enough other people get what they want." - Zig Ziglar
- Re: On the naming of System and Home services modules., (continued)
- Re: On the naming of System and Home services modules., Ludovic Courtès, 2021/09/23
- Code sharing between system and home services (was Re: On the naming of System and Home services modules.), Xinglu Chen, 2021/09/24
- Re: Code sharing between system and home services (was Re: On the naming of System and Home services modules.), Maxime Devos, 2021/09/24
- Re: Code sharing between system and home services (was Re: On the naming of System and Home services modules.), Xinglu Chen, 2021/09/24
- Re: Code sharing between system and home services (was Re: On the naming of System and Home services modules.), Maxime Devos, 2021/09/24
- Re: Code sharing between system and home services (was Re: On the naming of System and Home services modules.), Ludovic Courtès, 2021/09/28
- Re: Code sharing between system and home services (was Re: On the naming of System and Home services modules.), Andrew Tropin, 2021/09/28
- Re: Code sharing between system and home services (was Re: On the naming of System and Home services modules.),
Joshua Branson <=
- Re: Code sharing between system and home services (was Re: On the naming of System and Home services modules.), Ludovic Courtès, 2021/09/28
- Re: Code sharing between system and home services (was Re: On the naming of System and Home services modules.), Maxime Devos, 2021/09/29
- Re: Code sharing between system and home services (was Re: On the naming of System and Home services modules.), Maxim Cournoyer, 2021/09/27
Re: On the naming of System and Home services modules., Ryan Prior, 2021/09/15
Re: On the naming of System and Home services modules., Ludovic Courtès, 2021/09/23