Re: Value in adding Shepherd requirements to file-systems entries?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi!

Richard Sent <richard@freakingpenguin.com> skribis:

> Before hacking away at this myself, I'd like to get other people's
> thoughts on the best way to proceed. Do others agree that (file-system)
> entries should support networked devices? Should this be transparent
> depending on the type, or require explicit configuration?
>
> e.g.
>
> (file-system
>   (device "//192.168.1.102/share")
>   (options "guest")
>   (mount-point "/mnt/share")
>   (type "cifs")
>   ;; Should we explicitly require network, or implicitly add it from
>   ;; the type? If the latter, what to do about Avahi?
>   (requirement 'networking)
>   (mount-may-fail? #t)
>   (create-mount-point? #t))

I think this makes sense.

The other option would be to allow for symbols in the ‘dependencies’
field, because it’s really the same thing.  That would only require a
new clause in the ‘dependency->shepherd-service-name’ procedure.

HTH!

Ludo’.