[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A friendlier API for operating-system declarations
From: |
Josselin Poiret |
Subject: |
Re: A friendlier API for operating-system declarations |
Date: |
Thu, 23 Mar 2023 19:48:06 +0100 |
Hi Edouard,
Edouard Klein <edk@beaver-labs.com> writes:
> #+begin_src scheme
> (->
> (minimal-ovh "ssh-rsa AAASomethingSomething== root@minimal-ovh")
> (http-static-content "sub2.example.com" #:to-dir "/srv/sub2")
> (http-static-content "sub1.example.com" #:to-dir "/srv/sub1/")
> (add-services my-db))
> #+end_src
>
> The code of the function is on my channel:
> https://gitlab.com/edouardklein/guix/-/blob/beaverlabs/beaver/system.scm
>
> After a few months of experience, and positive feedback from my clients,
> my question to you guys is: would you be interested in mainlining this,
> or should I keep my development efforts separate in my channel ?
I am quite in favor of using operating-system transformations rather
than inheritance, because they're composable! This could be leveraged
to get a nice CLI API as well.
> I do think this API is easier than manipulating services, and although
> extendable services are awesome and a very nifty piece of engineering,
> they require quite a good knowledge of scheme and take a while to be
> used to, while this new API, while way less powerful, lowers the barrier
> to entry for newcomers.
By this, do you mean that there's no way with your syntax to modify a
given service? Is there a reason for this? It does seem to me that it
could probably be done.
> They are an easy way to maintain a declarative whole operating system
> configuration, with a syntax similar enough to docker and ansible that
> sysadmins familiar with it can quickly get up and running, thus exposing
> more people to Guix.
>
> What do you think ?
You've got me interested :) especially since you already have customer
feedback!
Best,
--
Josselin Poiret
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature