Hi,
Gábor Boskovits <[email protected]> skribis:
> I have two reasons for that: backwards compatibility is really
> important, so we should not break it, and I believe this would not be
> hard to do.
> On the other hand it would be nice to have a more integrated backend,
> and move as many things into the services infrastructure as practical,
> and I think this is a good candidate for that. Wdyt?
There’s already ‘setuid-program-service-type’. I think the way forward
would be to:
1. Define the <setuid-program> record type you propose.
2. Have ‘setuid-program-service-type’ accept that through its
extensions. When it receives something else, it should
transparently turn it into a <setuid-program> record, for backward
compatibility, and emit a deprecation warning.
3. Document the OS ‘setuid-programs’ field as taking a list of such
records.
How does that sound?
Thanks,
Ludo’.
