Christopher Lemmer Webber writes: > Ludovic Courtès writes: > >> Hi, >> >> Gábor Boskovits skribis: >> >>> I have two reasons for that: backwards compatibility is really >>> important, so we should not break it, and I believe this would not be >>> hard to do. >>> On the other hand it would be nice to have a more integrated backend, >>> and move as many things into the services infrastructure as practical, >>> and I think this is a good candidate for that. Wdyt? >> >> There’s already ‘setuid-program-service-type’. I think the way forward >> would be to: >> >> 1. Define the record type you propose. >> >> 2. Have ‘setuid-program-service-type’ accept that through its >> extensions. When it receives something else, it should >> transparently turn it into a record, for backward >> compatibility, and emit a deprecation warning. >> >> 3. Document the OS ‘setuid-programs’ field as taking a list of such >> records. >> >> How does that sound? >> >> Thanks, >> Ludo’. > > This sounds like a good plan. I'm taking a stab at it, but there's a > good chance I'll get it wrong, so review will be seriously needed. > Let's find out how I do! I've attached a patch that includes my plan for the setuid stuff. I could submit this to guix-patches I suppose if that would be better. But I wonder if I should actually just rebase the wip-postfix on top of master, apply this, and then start working on setting up postfix to make use of it. What do you think of this approach?