Subject: [bug#70542] Value in adding Shepherd requirements to file-systems entries?

From: Richard Sent <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 May 2024 08:45:45 -0400

Hi Ludo!

> 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.

Personally I prefer separating requirements and dependencies.
Dependencies adjusts the order of mounting file-systems /before/
provisioning 'file-systems, while requirements actually delays mounting
a file system until Shepherd services have started (by removing it as a
requirement for provisioning 'file-systems).

I think this distinction in behavior should be emphasized in the API and
manual.

An alternative to the requirement/requirements field is changing the
name to shepherd-requirement. That would be consistent with other
services and make the distinction between dependencies and requirements
unambiguous. (And sidestep the pluralization question.)

Happy to change to whatever the consensus is!

-- 
Take it easy,
Richard Sent
Making my computer weirder one commit at a time.