GNU bug report logs - #54986
[PATCH] gnu: mpd: Add support for socket activation.

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 54986 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
Subject: [bug#54986] [PATCH] gnu: mpd: Add support for socket activation.
Date: Wed, 03 May 2023 15:27:31 +0200

Hi,

Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com> skribis:

> Am Montag, dem 01.05.2023 um 11:53 -0400 schrieb Maxim Cournoyer:
>> > > Like Ludovic, I'm wondering what duplicating the Shepherd
>> > > endpoints API in Guix buys us?  [...]
>> 
>> Instead of replicating the Shepherd API in Guix, could we use the
>> Shepherd API directly?  It's Scheme, and already depended on by Guix,
>> so the question arises.
> In theory, it'd be possible, albeit with some caveats:

It’s not just possible: several services in (gnu services …) and (gnu
home services …) use endpoints for systemd or inetd-style startup.

> 1. Shepherd doesn't (didn't) have a full guix-style records API, which
> might cause discrepancies in otherwise normal-looking Scheme code.

I’m not convinced.  :-)

> 2. It'd probably make shepherd a compile-time dependency, which is
> avoided in other places in the code, i.e. (gnu build shepherd)

(gnu build shepherd) is 75% deprecated; the introduction of endpoints in
the Shepherd didn’t have any effect on it.

> 3. Shepherd records are (to my knowledge) not print-readable, so we'd
> have to move them through G-Expressions through some of our own code
> anyway; how strongly that would replicate the API is up to
> debate/speculation.

When would you want to print those <endpoint> records?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.