Le Fri, 14 Sep 2018 22:14:07 +0200,
Julien Lepiller <julien@lepiller.eu> a écrit :

> Le Fri, 14 Sep 2018 22:03:53 +0200,
> Julien Lepiller <julien@lepiller.eu> a écrit :
> 
> > Le Fri, 14 Sep 2018 17:29:19 +0200,
> > Gábor Boskovits <boskovits@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >   
> > > This looks good to me.
> > > 
> > > The extensions field is a good idea.
> > > 
> > > I also believe that after adding an extensions field it would be
> > > easier to document this.    
> > 
> > Here is a new series of 2 patches: the first one is unchanged (only
> > rebased to master) and the second one introduces the extensions
> > field and documents it. I added an example in the documentation.
> >   
> > > 
> > > Do you think that it might be possible to list these extension
> > > packages somehow, or even stop them being directly installable,
> > > noting to use the extensions field in your service definition?
> > > Would that make sense?    
> > 
> > Extension packages still have to be visible for users to list them
> > in the new field, so it seems hard to hide them at the same time :)
> > I agree it would make sense to be able to list all such extensions,
> > and so is listing extensions to other packages. Maybe we can think
> > of a generic mechanism for that?  
> 
> Whoops, that last patch wasn't complete :)

I must be really tired, I spotted more mistakes after trying to run
guix system on a config with postgis.