From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:42044) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h6usm-0005mX-QW for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 06:25:11 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h6ulv-0005Gh-Pg for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 06:18:04 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:39153) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h6ulu-0005CH-0Y for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 06:18:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1h6ult-0005n3-P1 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 06:18:01 -0400 Subject: [bug#28128] [PATCH 2/2] scripts: system: Support container network sharing. Resent-Message-ID: From: Arun Isaac In-Reply-To: <874l80tw60.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20190313093610.1071-1-arunisaac@systemreboot.net> <20190313093610.1071-3-arunisaac@systemreboot.net> <87va0n80u5.fsf@gnu.org> <874l80tw60.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 15:47:35 +0530 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 28128@debbugs.gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > It=E2=80=99s not easily possible, and I think it would be a bad idea: if = every > service has access to every =E2=80=98operating-system=E2=80=99 field, tha= t gives you > more flexibility, but it=E2=80=99s also much harder to reason about what > happens, compared to the current extension graph (the NixOS =E2=80=9Cmodu= le=E2=80=9D > system works like that: every service can access every bit of the whole > configuration, but IMO that makes it quite hard to understand.) OK, I understand. Just out of curiosity: Why do we have special operating-system fields like host-name, hosts-file, etc. instead of just having services like host-name-service-type, hosts-file-service-type, etc.? Doesn't giving special status to these operating-system fields complicate things? For example, if we only had a hosts-file-service-type instead of a hosts-file operating-system field, we wouldn't have the problem that /etc/hosts could only be created from within essential-services. > What could be useful is =E2=80=9Cself-referential=E2=80=9D records, where= a field can > refer to the record it belongs do. So we=E2=80=99d do: > > (define-record-type* > ;; =E2=80=A6 > (services operating-system-services > (self-referential? #t) (default essential-services))) > > whereby =E2=80=98essential-services=E2=80=99 would be passed the > record somehow. > > That needs more thought=E2=80=A6 OK, I'll wait. Thanks! --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEf3MDQ/Lwnzx3v3nTLiXui2GAK7MFAlyTZL8ACgkQLiXui2GA K7NU8gf9EIjnFMnLlspjvIv0MzqenkZcP7AE+9WpXipn2WttSIROSKgL+F8oRd3p Sg/DTdoSVZnYHrseL+JaxFX3QmJoJ7uJlhltCmuoqwfobmyxlyenS3g7VmvnJzS2 ADxVjwB6jLmYlmuzqSpW6eSE3Wi8PGyeiDN2w/EKe3pYayFfbPJx87gxzcB6qwyc xWFRCzwTFLAdro5Llo6WaDg4IAlMHR0LMKASfJQN6D7ObnewcWfY2P6v3sORMD/N BRQbTAm5JG/1ZW0/lzXrR0eel+P+IzlyuXF/BHcerySYg6kxXIdOywR1WUA5YgRQ OBmbjX/uIhiSlmRa3tE8oVeU770YhA== =acyZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--