Re: On the naming of System and Home services modules.

["Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org>]

Hi,

Xinglu Chen <public@yoctocell.xyz> skribis:

> Some services might be useful to have in both Guix System and Guix Home;
> for instance, Guix System currently has a service for configuring
> Syncthing, and I think it makes sense to also have one for Guix Home,
> this would mean that people not using Guix System (me :-)) could also
> have Guix manage Syncthing.  With the current approach, we would have to
> copy and paste quite a bit of code, and if the Syncthing service for
> Guix System changes, then the one for Guix Home might have to change as
> well.

Silly question, but why do we need to have two different configuration
record types in the first place?

Sharing configuration between Home and System sounds important to me: it
means users can easily move services from one to the other, which is
pretty big deal.  It also means we’d have much less code to maintain.

Would that be feasible?  (Apologies if this has already been discussed!)

Also, I proposed earlier a possible way to generate a Home service type
from the corresponding System service type—or, IOW, to generate a Home
service type graph from the System graph.  Does that sound feasible?

Thanks,
Ludo’.