Sergey Trofimov <s...@sarg.org.ru> writes:
> - adding it to guix increases maintenance burden: new versions could > add or remove config options This is why there should be automated tests. There are too few of them. > - it requires documentation/translation, another hidden cost We should only accept configuration procedures that have proper documentation, yes. > - it bloats guix: imagine if we add configs for every > user-configurable app That would be nice. If we started to accept the term bloat we could easily apply it to anything in Guix: all that R stuff? Bloat! All that bioinfo stuff? Bloat! > - such configs are not easily transferrable: if I were to use the > same app in non-guix env, I'd have to maintain 2 configs We are generating configuration files from our config languages. So you would only need to generate them and copy them for your non-guix environment. > Another recent example is `oci-container-configuration` which defines > a subset of docker-cli startup arguments. The problem is that `docker > run` command has 96 options and the configuration only uses a handful, > lacking a way to provide the remaining ones. All config bindings need to have an escape hatch. -- Ricardo
