Hi Bruno,
Bruno Victal skribis:
> On 2023-02-25 17:46, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
[...]
>> As we once discussed on IRC, the conclusion to me is that some of the
>> code currently implemented as activation snippets should rather be
>> implemented either as part of the ‘start’ method of the
Am Dienstag, dem 09.05.2023 um 20:12 +0100 schrieb Bruno Victal:
> Hi Ludo’,
>
> On 2023-02-25 17:46, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> > Bruno Victal skribis:
> > > In [1], the issue arises from using activation-service-type to
> > > create files/directories for services
> > > when these should be
Hi Ludo’,
On 2023-02-25 17:46, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Bruno Victal skribis:
>> In [1], the issue arises from using activation-service-type to create
>> files/directories for services
>> when these should be either (1) shepherd one-shot services or moved into the
>> 'start' procedure of the
Hi Bruno,
Bruno Victal skribis:
> The current situation with services in Guix is that service extensions do not
> care about dependencies.
This is the result of “services” being unrelated to “Shepherd services”,
as noted in the manual (info "(guix) Services").
> This can result in cryptic
On 2023-01-08 12:31, Bruno Victal wrote:
> (...) the issue arises from using activation-service-type to create
> files/directories for services
> when these should be either (1) shepherd one-shot services or moved into the
> 'start' procedure of the service.
Idea:
Instead of moving these
Hi all,
The current situation with services in Guix is that service extensions do not
care about dependencies.
This can result in cryptic errors as seen in [1].
In [1], the issue arises from using activation-service-type to create
files/directories for services
when these should be either (1)
