Carlo Zancanaro transcribed 1.7K bytes: > I have a question related to this, but about a broader issue. > > On Sat, Apr 15 2017, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > (service openssh-service-type) > > Is this supposed to be the preferred way to add a service to your > operating system? Or, put another way, as a service writer: should I > consider a *-service-type to be sufficient to complete the work of > creating a service? > > Looking at various services that we have defined at the moment > (according to what is documented), most services have a procedure (ie. > *-service), and maybe also a *-service-type. For example, in "Database > Services" we have postgresql-service and mysql-service, with no > corresponding *-service-type. But then we have redis-service-type > without a *-service to go with it. > > I wonder if we would be better off creating *-service procedures for > each *-service-type and documenting them as the canonical way to create > services. That way we could handle things like default arguments through > the usual scheme mechanisms, rather than our own special case. > > Carlo
Yeah I fully agree and sympathize with the need for a canonical way to create services. In packages, we habe some kind of framework (with some expectations), with system-services it is currently as free as it gets in freedom of expression. Which is both good and confusing to get started with. -- PGP and more: https://people.pragmatique.xyz/ng0/
