Andy Wingo <wi...@igalia.com> skribis: > On Wed 19 Apr 2017 19:45, Christopher Baines <m...@cbaines.net> writes: > >> I also spotted the define-configuration syntax, which looks like it >> might work well, but I wanted to check if this was definitely a >> direction more services were heading before attempting to write out a >> large part of the supported configuration options. > > MHO is this is the direction we should go in. Having a configuration > defined in a data type that Guix can understand makes it easier to > operate on the system as a whole -- the system can see your mysql > configuration and introspect on it, it's easy to define extension > points, etc. There are a few services that use this approach and I > expect the number to grow over time. At the same time many of these > services have the option to fall back on an opaque configuration when > you have special needs or a different workflow -- see dovecot for a very > long example.
I agree. Record types defined with ‘define-configuration’ or similar are preferable to using an alist or another dictionary type also because of the set of fields is checked at macro-expansion time (eventually I’d like to have some static type checks in there too). Ludo’.
