unofficial mirror of 
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Bruno Victal <>
To: Felix Lechner <>
Subject: Re: Divvying up service definitions
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 16:09:23 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

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 I don't think it
would hurt to organize them.

> Also, we already use this scheme for several services---such as rsync,
> ssh, vnc, certbot, certbot, cgit, cups, ldap, lirc, sddm, avahi, mcron,
> spice, auditd, sysctl, getmail, lightdm, and syncthing. I am not sure
> it's worth a long discussion.

Agreed, the crux of the discussion is splitting service-definitions into
their own modules.
Sorting them can be decided later. (in a separate discussion if necessary)

> Moreover, categorizations are often ambigious and can make it harder to
> locate a particular service definition.
> While some services may remain narrowly bundled---as they are in nfs,
> dbus, herd, hurd, samba, docker, ganeti, and shepherd---categorizations
> often exist purely in the eye of the beholder. For example, does
> Kerberos belong into its own category, as it does now, or is part of
> 'authentication', or perhaps 'security'?

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)

We already see something similar with gnu/packages/… and it hasn't caused
much pain I believe. (the concerns there are mostly about cyclic modules
which I don't believe is relevant for services)
Again, the categorization doesn't have any impact on the code itself and
its purpose is to collect the modules into something more manageable so
even outright miscategorizations don't have any impact on the functionality
of the code.

> For a transitional period, we could perhaps provide intermediate modules
> in old places which re-export the service definitions that were moved,
> but I'm not sure it's really necessary.

Absolutely, there's mechanisms for re-export and we can already see their
use. (e.g. gnu/system/shadow.scm)

Furthermore, I consider that nonfree software must be eradicated.


  reply	other threads:[~2023-10-26 15:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-10-24 14:41 Divvying up service definitions Bruno Victal
2023-10-24 17:54 ` Felix Lechner via Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution.
2023-10-26 15:09   ` Bruno Victal [this message]
2023-10-28  9:11     ` Attila Lendvai
2023-11-09 14:55     ` Felix Lechner via Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution.
2023-11-07 15:56 ` Maxim Cournoyer
2023-11-09  7:15   ` Efraim Flashner
2023-11-28 20:29     ` Bruno Victal
2023-12-05  1:23       ` Maxim Cournoyer
2023-11-16 14:49   ` Ludovic Courtès

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

  List information:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).