From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id 6O4jBXfCWGB3GgAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 16:14:47 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id mE3iAHfCWGDLEgAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 16:14:47 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4931C1DA0E for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 17:14:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1]:50120 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lONCX-0003tq-5N for larch@yhetil.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:14:45 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:49180) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lONBg-0003px-KN for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:13:52 -0400 Received: from mailrelay.tugraz.at ([129.27.2.202]:35248) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lONBd-0006cg-Ei for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:13:51 -0400 Received: from nijino.local (194-96-13-79.adsl.highway.telekom.at [194.96.13.79]) by mailrelay.tugraz.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4F400y3gYdz3xPC; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 17:13:37 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tugraz.at; s=mailrelay; t=1616429618; bh=G8wQcBvwCyhJD2XGrLuUEYc+8FCasv2fXEVxXEvjH1U=; h=Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=m2GRg8qJXqR7K9HM3b/Z/eSDW42oAu4go607DSYPdeqVROMrDwaGtnMZH9Q9n2Lwp Q/s9UGlOpLG7Flw7oYp3dBD2icz9ApEeiM/Q77SjIc6m7uHC9na7Jnnf2kFPgOwvv7 lqS6SMg0npe5cdW7w8Y4bJDlJnj5Zs5qvgkNP3QI= Message-ID: <4a05774724102f08a936ddab509830ef48f4b8a5.camel@student.tugraz.at> Subject: Re: Sharing system users for related services From: Leo Prikler To: raingloom , "guix-devel@gnu.org" Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 17:13:36 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20210322134006.4cd9f6dc@riseup.net> References: <20210322134006.4cd9f6dc@riseup.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TUG-Backscatter-control: bt4lQm5Tva3SBgCuw0EnZw X-Spam-Scanner: SpamAssassin 3.003001 X-Spam-Score-relay: -1.9 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.74 on 129.27.10.117 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=129.27.2.202; envelope-from=leo.prikler@student.tugraz.at; helo=mailrelay.tugraz.at X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1616429686; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=G8wQcBvwCyhJD2XGrLuUEYc+8FCasv2fXEVxXEvjH1U=; b=K0eRZpYwZxtS9EYitMo3Qffb64M6DBjsSg3RZqi4ZGX6c8MWVg0gmG126eLHUOEfcBuQxp n2RIVPMcnPqU9iVOYAs0rcXK32g12s79HBgSVk9MM8v63bN+4NniWNRh0Yx0AsOEbhKocP W/pTCB5kC8FwrHbhVF/HLdmCPYPfUfszAE7eQLayDb0nFnhRUWHg+vAijalJITQz+SmK7T A+tSfevhlZIYn0GWjwvmb+7qHD11JIyHgLjeCePbf3HNuU/qJfGsA9IZ/AU0JRBmqrjOfe nWrvXY9hy1aFguG/1xWPQSikUU6cs9sLhIMpbyHTyK00I8HQRYxnDWKY/90C6w== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1616429686; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=puYRTH//9Z+oJ8rYMKD7/WDKdTYBix59w0SE7lsO97KO8D6NJIqBW+3IwT+nAAzrprrzol aJD3EYg6u73TagE7/CdfR2lKI4DgxA1jXA8Gf/nrxZi7cvVYuMncBigL43UgIaJxy8TFb+ pipXLE3j/yoSHZt0riDUUOa/mwjTHuxGbHfdhhie77lHYDHjiyaGZL/+eFe+s4mA/jcJFd 7XmP7iG/O6FjBKpNq85mn0Txt6ogPhXkQ+s/5mB0wnhK8ODaWkXnVw0qDd9HMNctgvoaol 1FFB7g9lRZz3SLP70x0wwzzE+6Dhc/N6/RjwtwLqIMuWymqp8Tei9l8QaPKNXA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=tugraz.at header.s=mailrelay header.b=m2GRg8qJ; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=student.tugraz.at; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -3.68 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=tugraz.at header.s=mailrelay header.b=m2GRg8qJ; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=student.tugraz.at; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 4931C1DA0E X-Spam-Score: -3.68 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: uqa9b5zQkXyW Hi raingloom, Am Montag, den 22.03.2021, 13:40 +0100 schrieb raingloom: > I'm packaging the Molly Brown Gemini server and I'm trying to play > nice > with the already packaged gmnisrv. > Should the two use the same service name and system users? Most users > probably won't want to run both servers at the same time, so the > former > seems like a good idea. And the latter would be preferable because if > they use the same certs, %gmnisrv-activation will trample over the > permissions when they do want to run both for some reason. > > So should I just reuse %gmnisrv-accounts or should they both use a > shared %gemini-server-accounts? As the one, who wrote the code, that lets you share accounts as list "pointers" in the first place, I do think something along the lines of (define %molly-brown-accounts %gmnisrv-accounts) with an appropriate comment should be fine, especially for a proof of concept implementation. That being said, patch review is an ideal opportunity to bikeshed such definitions ;) Regards, Leo