From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor_Boskovits?= Subject: Re: One-shot Shepherd services Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 19:24:23 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87ftqfngda.fsf@gnu.org> <87h8agyxoq.fsf@gmail.com> <878svrlggj.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bbbc750587c2acfa" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:47533) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hLWUh-0002oC-VH for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 13:24:41 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hLWUg-0002H4-Uy for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 13:24:39 -0400 In-Reply-To: <878svrlggj.fsf@gnu.org> 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" To: =?UTF-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: Guix-devel --000000000000bbbc750587c2acfa Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s ezt =C3=ADrta (id=C5=91pont: 2019. =C3= =A1pr. 30., K, 16:24): > Chris Marusich skribis: > > > At first I was a little confused about why we would ever want to use a > > one-shot shepherd service instead of an activation snippet, but after > > reviewing the account-shepherd-service, I think I understand. It seems > > that we make it a one-shot shepherd service instead of an activation > > snippet so that we can take advantage of shepherd's service dependency > > management. In the case of account-shepherd-service, it looks like we > > made it a shepherd service to ensure that it would run after > > 'file-systems' is up. This makes sense, since it could be a little > > awkward to try to ensure proper execution order by extending the > > activation service, and even if we did that, it would duplicate the > > dependency management logic that shepherd gives us already. > > Yes, that=E2=80=99s exactly the reason. > > This raises the question, if we are willing to convert some more activation snippets to one-shot services. Are there any candidates for that? > The =E2=80=98user-homes=E2=80=99 service was introduced to fix a bug wher= eby, if you > were using a separate /home, home directories would be created at the > wrong time=E2=80=94i.e., before the real /home was mounted. > > Ludo=E2=80=99. > > Best regards, g_bor --000000000000bbbc750587c2acfa Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello,

Ludovic Court=C3=A8s <ludo@gnu.org> ezt =C3=ADrta (id=C5=91pont:= 2019. =C3=A1pr. 30., K, 16:24):
Chris Marusich <cmmarusich@gmail.com> skribis:

> At first I was a little confused about why we would ever want to use a=
> one-shot shepherd service instead of an activation snippet, but after<= br> > reviewing the account-shepherd-service, I think I understand.=C2=A0 It= seems
> that we make it a one-shot shepherd service instead of an activation > snippet so that we can take advantage of shepherd's service depend= ency
> management.=C2=A0 In the case of account-shepherd-service, it looks li= ke we
> made it a shepherd service to ensure that it would run after
> 'file-systems' is up.=C2=A0 This makes sense, since it could b= e a little
> awkward to try to ensure proper execution order by extending the
> activation service, and even if we did that, it would duplicate the > dependency management logic that shepherd gives us already.

Yes, that=E2=80=99s exactly the reason.


This raises the question, if we are wi= lling to convert some more activation
snippets to one-shot servic= es. Are there any candidates for that?
=C2=A0
The =E2=80=98user-homes=E2=80=99 service was introduced to fix a bug whereb= y, if you
were using a separate /home, home directories would be created at the
wrong time=E2=80=94i.e., before the real /home was mounted.

Ludo=E2=80=99.


Best regards,
g_bor
--000000000000bbbc750587c2acfa--