[bug#65119] [PATCH 0/8] Sharing service code between Home and System

[Andrew Tropin <andrew@trop.in>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2916 bytes --]

On 2023-10-13 18:05, Ludovic Courtès wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
>
> Andrew Tropin <andrew@trop.in> skribis:
>
>> We have
>>
>> (extensions
>>  (list (service-extension account-service-type
>>                           (const %dicod-accounts))
>>        (service-extension shepherd-root-service-type
>>                           dicod-shepherd-service)))
>>
>>
>> We can do
>>
>> (home-environment
>>  (services
>>   (list (service dicod-service-type)))
>>  (service-mapping
>>   `((,shepherd-root-service-type . ,home-shepherd-service-type)
>>     (,account-service-type . ,ignore-service-type))))
>
> As a user writing the ‘home-environment’ declaration, I don’t want to
> know whether a Home service is implemented by mapping a System service
> to Home, or whether it’s a fully separate implementation.
>
> To me, users shouldn’t have to specify service mappings at all; service
> mapping is a tool at the disposal of service writers.
>
>> Now you can use the same service type and configuration record in
>> both operating-system and home-environment and use/ignore/interpret the
>> configuration fields values based on the environment we are building
>> this thing for.
>>
>> Of course service-mapping default value can be generated upfront and
>> stored in %guix-home-service-mapping or something like that.
>>
>> This way we will get rid of almost all home- services and related
>> configurations.
>>
>> Keep in mind that it's a raw idea, not a well-designed solution yet.
>
> The good thing is that we seem to agree on the general idea of having a
> way to map System services to Home.
>
> My take is that the mapping is an implementation detail that users do
> not need to be aware of.
>
>> The reason I'm suggesting to revert this patch series is because it
>> feels to me as a partial solution on the wrong level of abstraction,
>> which cures the symptoms and also introduces shortcomings and
>> potentially makes it harder to introduce a proper solution in the
>> future.
>
> I disagree with this assessment.
>
>> If this problem is urgent/demanding for you, please invite me for
>> working or collaborating on the solution explicitly, I plan work on it
>> anyway, but probably not earlier than the next year.  I catched this
>> thread accidentially BTW, thanks to 宋文武 for CCing me.
>
> This problem has been discussed pretty much since Home was merged in
> Guix¹; we’ve all had ample time to think about it and to my knowledge
> this patch series is the only proposal that was ever brought.
>
> I’ll close this bug for clarity.  I remain open to discussion on the
> implementation of System -> Home service mapping.  I think further
> discussion should happen in the context of incremental changes to the
> implementation of that mapping mechanism, in a dedicated issue.

👌

-- 
Best regards,
Andrew Tropin

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]