Subject: Re: bug#60657: Rethinking how service extensions work

From: Bruno Victal <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 17:31:05 +0000

On 2023-01-08 12:31, Bruno Victal wrote:
> (...) the issue arises from using activation-service-type to create files/directories for services
> when these should be either (1) shepherd one-shot services or moved into the 'start' procedure of the service.

Idea:
Instead of moving these procedures into the start procedure from shepherd-service and end up with a very
large start constructor, we could augment <shepherd-service> with a 'pre-start' field that is responsible for
setting up the initial conditions for the service. That is, we move most of the code in the activation-service-type extensions
into this 'pre-start' field. We could also consider if it would make sense adding post-start, pre-stop and post-stop fields.

Cheers,
Bruno