From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: Adding rottlog service in =?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=98%base-services?=
	=?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=99=3F?=
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 17:03:58 +0200
Message-ID: <87pomw7541.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <87wphcpsfu.fsf@gnu.org> <87k2dc3arp.fsf@we.make.ritual.n0.is>
	<CAL1_imm6WCyhbDRbyeW=_4S6C-GGA3zUiJ5ve3-Lh1DrRXpdsw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59423)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1bwsPX-0000Eu-Ai
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:04:12 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1bwsPR-0003QJ-NA
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:04:07 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAL1_imm6WCyhbDRbyeW=_4S6C-GGA3zUiJ5ve3-Lh1DrRXpdsw@mail.gmail.com>
	(David Craven's message of "Thu, 13 Oct 2016 10:44:55 +0200")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: David Craven <david@craven.ch>
Cc: guix-devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>

David Craven <david@craven.ch> skribis:

>> Should we add rottlog-service and thus mcron-service to
>> =E2=80=98%base-services=E2=80=99?  Is log rotation a basic feature that =
people expect?
>> WDYT?
>
> Why not. There's two sorts of people. The ones that don't care/know
> will be happy when things just work and the ones that care/know are
> probably defining their own %base-services anyway...

Yeah so I think =E2=80=98%base-services=E2=80=99 is bound to remain pretty =
much the same
forever.

And what about adding it to =E2=80=98%desktop-services=E2=80=99?  This one =
is clearly
for people who expect things to work out of the box.

>> If we do so, we would need to document a way to add mcron jobs from the
>> =E2=80=98operating-system=E2=80=99 declaration.  People would no longer =
be able to write
>> something like this in the =E2=80=98services=E2=80=99 field.
>
> Mmh... If we do something like this we shouldn't call it mcron-jobs,
> otherwise we'll have the same problems like with grub - where all
> variables are named grub or grub? or grub.cfg. How about just calling
> it jobs?

Not sure I understand the problem.  =E2=80=98mcron-jobs=E2=80=99 wouldn=E2=
=80=99t collide with
anything else AFAICS, and it would be clearer than just =E2=80=98jobs=E2=80=
=99 no?

So related question: putting =E2=80=98mcron-service=E2=80=99 in =E2=80=98%b=
ase-services=E2=80=99?  It
would be a no-op in the absence of job specifications.

Thanks for your feedback,
Ludo=E2=80=99.