Hi! Richard Sent <rich...@freakingpenguin.com> skribis:
> Before hacking away at this myself, I'd like to get other people's > thoughts on the best way to proceed. Do others agree that (file-system) > entries should support networked devices? Should this be transparent > depending on the type, or require explicit configuration? > > e.g. > > (file-system > (device "//192.168.1.102/share") > (options "guest") > (mount-point "/mnt/share") > (type "cifs") > ;; Should we explicitly require network, or implicitly add it from > ;; the type? If the latter, what to do about Avahi? > (requirement 'networking) > (mount-may-fail? #t) > (create-mount-point? #t)) I think this makes sense. The other option would be to allow for symbols in the ‘dependencies’ field, because it’s really the same thing. That would only require a new clause in the ‘dependency->shepherd-service-name’ procedure. HTH! Ludo’.
