l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: >> (define (services->package services) >> "Yield a package for SERVICES by making them into a shepherd >> configuration file via scheme-file." > > This makes me think that perhaps we should generalize profile, and allow > non-package objects in there—it doesn’t feel right to define a <package> > for something that’s conceptually not a package at all. > > But then that leads to issues, like what should ‘guix package -u’ do? > How should ~/.guix-profile/manifest represent these non-package things? > Should we add ‘guix package --install-service’ or similar? (Well, that > may be overboard…)
Profiles are our mechanism for "activating" simple software like GNU Hello. Software that does not need to be started, stopped, or otherwise managed by a system like Shepherd. What is a good mechanism for "activating" more complex software that needs this sort of management? Perhaps we can make a "guix service" command which performs upgrades like we do in 'upgrade-shepherd-services' (from guix/scripts/system.scm), but arranges to execute those commands against a user-specific Shepherd, not the root user's Shepherd? Perhaps a user profile should also have a "user services activation script", like how an operating system declaration has operating-system-activation-script (in gnu/system.scm)? I personally wouldn't mind if this stuff (e.g., the service activation script) wound up in a user's profile, but I can see what you're saying about how it might make using manifests difficult. So, I also wouldn't mind if the user service activation stuff was stored somewhere else, for example in ~/.guix-services". Maybe we could we stash the activation script into a place like ~/.guix-profile/boot, similar to how we store an activation script for the entire system in /run/current-system/boot? There must be a way to do this that makes sense... -- Chris
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
