From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Wingo Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] gnu: Add dovecot service Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 09:22:49 +0000 Message-ID: <87io3x8m52.fsf@igalia.com> References: <1450127388-8654-1-git-send-email-wingo@igalia.com> <1450127388-8654-2-git-send-email-wingo@igalia.com> <87fuz3co9q.fsf@gnu.org> <87wpseakfw.fsf@igalia.com> <20151216231423.GA5412@jasmine> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46500) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a9Umb-0004fm-FE for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 04:23:34 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a9UmY-0000QW-4o for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 04:23:33 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20151216231423.GA5412@jasmine> (Leo Famulari's message of "Wed, 16 Dec 2015 18:14:23 -0500") 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+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Leo Famulari Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Wed 16 Dec 2015 23:14, Leo Famulari writes: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 08:04:19AM +0000, Andy Wingo wrote: >> On Tue 15 Dec 2015 22:58, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: >> > Andy Wingo skribis: >> > >> >> * gnu/services/mail.scm: New file. >> > >> > Regarding the Schemefied configuration, do you think Dovecot=E2=80=99s >> > configuration model is stable enough that this won=E2=80=99t have to c= hange >> > much? Is a =E2=80=9Ccheat mode=E2=80=9D (where one can pass raw strin= gs to paste into >> > the configuration file) needed? >>=20 >> Finally, I'm not adverse to a .conf file escape hatch. It's especially >> convincing in a context where other services do the same -- we should >> have a greater degree of uniformity across services. However if other >> services implemented a 100%-solution Scheme configuration interface, I >> wonder if we would still want the .conf file interface. Dunno! > > For 3rd party software, I think we should make it possible for users to > use upstream's configuration language, preferably as a text block inside > of the service configuration block. Point well taken, thanks for the input. I'll add the ability to specify the configuration as a string, as you suggest. Andy