From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:59337) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h2D7g-0007ty-BO for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2019 05:53:05 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h2D7e-00074i-Ml for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2019 05:53:04 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:50569) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h2D7e-00074L-JL for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2019 05:53:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1h2D7e-0007Ll-6d for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2019 05:53:02 -0500 Subject: [bug#28128] [PATCH] scripts: system: Add support for container network sharing. Resent-Message-ID: From: Arun Isaac In-Reply-To: <87h8cisqs8.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20170817191334.26269-1-mail@cbaines.net> <87h8cisqs8.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2019 16:21:48 +0530 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 28128@debbugs.gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > a. Add in (gnu services) an =E2=80=98hosts-database-service-type=E2=80= =99 that would > take could be extended with IP/name pairs that it would put in > /etc/hosts. > > b. Have =E2=80=98essential-services=E2=80=99 extend =E2=80=98hosts-data= base-service-type=E2=80=99. > > In the container-with-shared-network case we=E2=80=99d arrange to not ext= end > =E2=80=98hosts-database-service-type=E2=80=99, which would thus not produ= ce /etc/hosts. How would we arrange to not extend `hosts-database-service-type' in the container-with-shared-network case? Wouldn't such an arrangement still require us to pass #:container-shared-network? to `essential-services'? --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEf3MDQ/Lwnzx3v3nTLiXui2GAK7MFAlyCSUQACgkQLiXui2GA K7Okhgf/WoAUSrdPZDuEu9LZw0QGUrsRQ7ExOJw/Fl4FKc+0kTa+P7mafy32H7sp SzHub2rWomLUU4y2wK47nUR7L+doHp06ekyN2H34NE2TLwVHAENf3e+KDSmpFiGz 1OgY0i+8ep4jKCoWIHQUSA/+suZH5GVIcbL/T0zpNQIeJoD8Yu3+JQujQb2JYccN 4uMpWRgwA19d+Wq/zIwjqFOe+XF+qcq7SLhoMTSrTxMalr/Bn01S2vrYJLmnW4Om v42Lw+KKlifV+LXgFd88KzJpURSu32xDodOYZVmjsglEqVODs6k2JiMSkzaHVNFp b3wyMNURQF5mvyJR98bmeAmxWdF7Zw== =+8D1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--