From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Marusich Subject: Re: (Exposing?) config files and non-start/stop operations Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 20:13:40 -0800 Message-ID: <87k2bwxibv.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87a8cuaszg.fsf@dustycloud.org> <878tsdbx2d.fsf@dustycloud.org> <87polpo2k4.fsf@gmail.com> <877f7wbyc7.fsf@dustycloud.org> <874m30bwpv.fsf@dustycloud.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59456) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c92Sp-0003ia-9g for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 23:13:48 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c92So-00006e-Cr for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 23:13:47 -0500 Received: from mail-pg0-x232.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c05::232]:34918) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c92So-00006I-7H for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 23:13:46 -0500 Received: by mail-pg0-x232.google.com with SMTP id p66so2909911pga.2 for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 20:13:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <874m30bwpv.fsf@dustycloud.org> (Christopher Allan Webber's message of "Mon, 21 Nov 2016 10:53:48 -0600") 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: Christopher Allan Webber Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Chris! Thanks for entertaining my questions. Christopher Allan Webber writes: >> So sure, we can run "foo-db gc" occasionally (though system >> administrators sometimes have to run these kinds of commands by hand). >> But what about "foo-db dumpdb"? That's not something we just run on a >> cronjob. You need access to that command. And in order for the command >> to do the right thing, it might need access to the config file. I'm having trouble understanding the motivation here. Can you clarify why it's preferable to model the action as a Shepherd action, even though a mechanism already exists to perform the action (e.g., "foo-db dumpdb")? I don't know a lot about Shepherd (yet!), but it seems like you COULD model the action as a Shepherd action. The question is: WHY would that be better than just performing the action via "the usual" mechanism? If you can provide a more concrete example which illustrates the problem for a specific service/daemon, it might help me to understand where you're coming from. =2D-=20 Chris --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJYM8X0AAoJEN1AmhXYIkadkHEQAL/HLPw/H/tKepBhdwGTJaMN f30KNpXYIfyuBFeKwMIDWimIHXTI9dDayrqnsO6ow+Ec5Gj4uTqX8Zl0SQtF61ZD lKKlYvjAc3vrsOM1h4G6oqsiENTpkVfSioj1XBDDbkBDTUBn8U3dHSLcAHLMaJjU epfm/u0Z2KquBiNAHP3v7ncdVBj7ePTOLL74qiAp7zH+W4R/RgM5rlxfuaCs2KpE p7VpP+EgQZ9pTtv0dH5UMz5acfhGb7X3/amPNkRbFb+29qvzSARWVNQblue+G89L 9KSYRdxMWNLGOauyZA4285wq/ca9vYCGnjU1iQKoKhPOgNDnedYazT3dCEM1JRIg iEChw3loR6jA4SolwW7crLiT6OzPc+TCnfhfglAdXy2IZ7iPXQ2WFL0MNkt2urAa Dh/O7SJ0mm4hqpIVsurp5pWHyDyAYI4H3NZFUuZGIKRJn2uBpANTRmiFivQIiyEx qRwFZ/RIo7i3jmIC22fwIUeiwGaqAkKKytnpB/IakyWTvB6mdgBU/vXPNeUZTRj6 K0i3NMr5irrx5QStv4fN0my3XsBdZNY3bvFSGSG7KNQjoIqc2DvcqfKZaZoYLiQq iArZWtMa4xDxi73145AnZRCR8qCzri6uLh7wXa9UpEtUojO+pW/SC7GvpSucyrq6 vWl8PwMY/v1DgQu9vTqI =iB/7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--