Ludovic Courtès writes: > So you’re suggesting to systematically have a high-level interface as > well as a lower-level interface that gives access to the raw config > file, right? > > The problem is that often, the service configuration does not to just > one config file. Often it also translates into command-line options, > user accounts, etc. For instance, ‘tor-service’ expects users to pass a > raw config file, but it also needs to create a user account whose name > is given in that config file, so it needs to control that part of the > config file. > > That being said, it’s always possible to extend ‘etc-service-type’ and > give it raw config files. > > Not offering any concrete solution but… does that make sense? :-) > > Thanks, > Ludo’.
It makes sense... I get the feeling that in order for us to really get a sense of what to do right here, we're going to have to forge ahead and maybe even get it a bit wrong, which is ok! It could even be that the thing I really want to build has to be build with an abstraction layer another layer up. Not the worst thing!
