bug#45911: authorized-fields is not/badly documented

[raingloom <raingloom@riseup.net>]

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 22:24:16 -0500
Julien Lepiller <julien@lepiller.eu> wrote:

> Actually, here's how I use it:
> https://framagit.org/tyreunom/system-configuration/-/blob/master/systems/tachikoma.scm#L69
> 
> And the key file is the one generated by guix, unmodified:
> https://framagit.org/tyreunom/system-configuration/-/blob/master/keys/xana.pub
> 
> Le 16 janvier 2021 19:34:49 GMT-05:00, raingloom
> <raingloom@riseup.net> a écrit :
> >On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 07:10:47 +0100
> >Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> wrote:
> >  
> >> raingloom <raingloom@riseup.net> writes:
> >>   
> >> > guix archive --authorize started issuing a warning some time ago
> >> > pointing to "authorized-keys" in "operating-system".
> >> >
> >> > * that is not a valid field of operating-system    
> >> 
> >> That’s right.  It’s a field of guix-configuration, which is  
> >documented  
> >> in 10.8.1 Base Services.
> >>   
> >
> >Thanks, I found that out already, that's how I ran into the other
> >issues.
> >I'm still confused about what the proper way to store the config info
> >is. Like how I should even store it as Scheme source code.  

Thanks, guess I'll go down the file route for now, but this is an
unsatisfactory solution IMHO.
What if you have multiple keys, or want to only include a subset of
keys in a given machine?
Having to use a file object to store a sexp is an odd choice when every
other part of Guix tries as hard as it can to use sexps and Scheme data
structures for configuration.

If no one wants to fix it, mind if I give it a go?