On Wed, Oct 29 2025, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
> Anytime you feel something is off or missing, I'd encourage you to send
> a patch exposing the needed option, or the escape hatch ("put your extra
> fragment here") if it's missing.Sure, although it's a shame to have to invest energy (not just mine, but also a committer's) to expose options when Guix just passes the values straight through to a config file. I currently have two open PRs from a month ago in Codeberg with no response[1]. This isn't a criticism, but it is a reality: sending a patch to add an option will take an unknowable amount of time to make it into master. That means that if I want to add an option it's not just "send a patch to Guix", it's also "maintain the patch in your own tree until it's merged" (which is additional friction). I am advocating for an approach to services that says "we use the upstream config format, with some helpers to construct what you need", rather than "we use a Guix-specific config format, with some holes to expose the upstream config format (but only if we thought to add them)". I'd like to put together an example of what I mean, but I probably won't have a chance for at least a few weeks. Carlo [1]: https://codeberg.org/guix/guix/pulls?poster=522103
