Ludovic Courtès writes: > Hi, > > Gábor Boskovits <boskov...@gmail.com> skribis: > >> I have two reasons for that: backwards compatibility is really >> important, so we should not break it, and I believe this would not be >> hard to do. >> On the other hand it would be nice to have a more integrated backend, >> and move as many things into the services infrastructure as practical, >> and I think this is a good candidate for that. Wdyt? > > There’s already ‘setuid-program-service-type’. I think the way forward > would be to: > > 1. Define the <setuid-program> record type you propose. > > 2. Have ‘setuid-program-service-type’ accept that through its > extensions. When it receives something else, it should > transparently turn it into a <setuid-program> record, for backward > compatibility, and emit a deprecation warning. > > 3. Document the OS ‘setuid-programs’ field as taking a list of such > records. > > How does that sound? > > Thanks, > Ludo’.
This sounds like a good plan. I'm taking a stab at it, but there's a good chance I'll get it wrong, so review will be seriously needed. Let's find out how I do!
