I didn't use LLM for translation. In this case I used it for learning
new things(C language, login/session/service management in linux),
inspecting new codebases(s6 repos, systemd, dinit, elogind, turnstile,
userspawn, etc.),
You don't have to believe me, but you can learn just as well by going
to
Codeberg (or GitHub if you have to) and browsing the code of the
projects
you're interested in. And if you have questions or want to discuss
things,
going to any project community and talking to the humans there. 🙂
We have an #s6 channel on the oftc.net IRC, that's where most of the
informal discussions happen. Join us!
I asked LLM to make my initial text more readable, with examples, and
with proper
formatting for the mailing list. I also don't like writing long texts
to other people,
having to tickle human brains' erogenous zones(some people call it
"making the text sound strong" or "sound polite/professional").
LLMs are better than me in that regard. For that reason I use LLM with emails.
I think you'll find most people, at least in the FOSS community and
*definitely* on this list, prefer to read your short, not-tickling,
not-professional e-mail, rather than the polite version. Give your
thoughts raw; that may require some work of interpretation, but we
_also_
have to do some work of interpretation with LLM output because it adds
a lot of uncertainty: what did you really want to say and what was
flavor
text added by the LLM? That's additional work that I absolutely don't
want
to do.
As evidenced by this e-mail, your prose is fine. You're making yourself
understood. That's enough.
I still hope I can contribute to your codebase, despite being new with C.
Rather than contributing to the codebase, I'd like you to contribute to
the _design discussion_ (which you're doing, so thanks!) because you're
experienced with user services and I'm not. Once we know exactly what
we want to do, code is generally easy.
I think UID instead of env only, makes it better, but personally,
I disagree with `--system` flag, since it's kinda unobvious for a new
user, and i think explicitness is better here. But you know this system better,
so I won't argue. It allows to use distro-packaged per-user services anyway.
There has been some discussion on the #s6 channel, and voices are not
unanimous.
An objective fact is that both OpenRC and systemd always address
system services by default, and need an explicit --user to address user
services, even when invoked with uid != 0.
My question was, is it more natural to do it this way, or does it make
more sense for normal users to access their own user service database by
default (since they cannot modify system services anyway).
Some people say that users access the system services more anyway,
almost never touch user services, and want consistent behaviour no
matter
their uid, so the OpenRC way of doing it is better.
Others say that my initial inclination is right and "s6 foobar" should
mean the user service by default unless invoked as root.
In the absence of a consensus, and of a significant sample of UX
returns
on calling the service manager as a non-root user, I have changed my
mind
and now think keeping things simple and consistent, as systemd and
OpenRC
do, is the best; the default can be changed later if UX returns say it
needs to be.
1. Setting s6-user.conf path at compile time, like it is done with s6.conf
2. Reading the interpretable paths at runtime.
And you seem to have added them in your last commit. Thank you for
that, I'll try it out.
It's untested, so if you have any issues with the changes, please
report
them!
--
Laurent
