Hi Bruno,
Bruno Victal writes:
> Hi Efraim,
>
> On 2023-11-09 07:15, Efraim Flashner wrote:
>> I assume the define-maybe's aren't public, so I'd guess that shouldn't
>> cause a problem as long as they aren't exported.
>
> They're not public but they override definitions within the same file
>
Hi Efraim,
On 2023-11-09 07:15, Efraim Flashner wrote:
> I assume the define-maybe's aren't public, so I'd guess that shouldn't
> cause a problem as long as they aren't exported.
They're not public but they override definitions within the same file
if more than one (define-maybe foo) is present
Hello!
Maxim Cournoyer skribis:
>> * Splitting this as gnu/services/dovecot.scm.
>> We keep it compatible with 'use-service-modules' at the cost of having
>> a multitude of files under gnu/services, without any logical grouping
>> (messy).
>
> That's a great initiative! I agree that
Hi Bruno,
On Thu, Oct 26 2023, Bruno Victal wrote:
> Agreed, the crux of the discussion is splitting service-definitions into
> their own modules.
In the current naming scheme, the module (gnu services configuration) is
an outlier: It does not ship "configuration services" but provides
On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 10:56:11AM -0500, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
> Hi Bruno,
>
> Bruno Victal writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > As the gnu/services and gnu/home/services grow, I think we should
> > consider divvying the services into stand-alone modules or
> > subdirectories.
> >
> > Consider the
Hi Bruno,
Bruno Victal writes:
> Hi,
>
> As the gnu/services and gnu/home/services grow, I think we should
> consider divvying the services into stand-alone modules or
> subdirectories.
>
> Consider the ⌜dovecot-service-type⌝ in gnu/services/mail.scm: as of
> commit
> I dont think there's any problem wrt categorization. For your Kerberos
> example, either would be fine as they're not mutually exclusive.
> (though I'd lean towards 'authentication' here)
sure, but the crux of the issue here is how to improve code readability; i.e.
would it make the humans
Hi Felix,
On 2023-10-24 18:54, Felix Lechner wrote:
> The number of services we offer strikes me as sufficiently small for
> your "unsorted" scheme to remain easy to navigate.
I can see your point here if we're to do estimates and interpolation
based on the growth of the services so far although
Hi Bruno,
On Tue, Oct 24 2023, Bruno Victal wrote:
> Further complicating things is
> 'define-maybe', whose use monopolizes the predicate and serializers for
> a particular service definition.
I've dealt with that in the past and support your effort.
> * Splitting this as
