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

[Julien Lepiller <julien@lepiller.eu>]

Le 20 janvier 2021 15:34:11 GMT-05:00, raingloom <raingloom@riseup.net> a écrit :
>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?

Go ahead :)