Hi Carlo,
> In principle, I think this should all be handled by a service.
> Services have a number of extension points where they can impact
> the operating system being declared, by extending other services.
> For example, adding a package into the global profile is done by
> extending profile-s
Hi raid5atemyhomework,
On Tue, Jan 05 2021, raid5atemyhomework wrote:
What `install-zfs` does is that it installs the same
kernel-specific package in three different points:
* `kernel-loadable-modules`, because ZFS needs to get into the
kernel somehow.
* `packages`, because the kernel module
Hi Jan,
>
> Better but still don't like it.
> Can't we put the os declaration into a variable and then pass it to a
> procedure?
> Say:
>
> > (define OS
> > (operating-system
> > (kernel linux-libre-5.4)
> > ; ... other fields ...
> > ))
> >
> > (install-zfs O
Good morning Taylan,
> First, let me point out a more conventional alternative to what your
> 'decorate' macro does:
>
> (define (compose proc . rest)
> "Functional composition; e.g. ((compose x y) a) = (x (y a))."
> (if (null? rest)
> proc
> (let ((rest-proc (apply compose rest)))
> (lambda x
> (
Dnia 2021-01-04, o godz. 15:38:38
raid5atemyhomework napisał(a):
> Hi guix-developers,
Hello.
> ```scheme
> (install-zfs
> (operating-system
> (kernel linux-libre-5.4)
> ; ... other fields ...
> ))
> ```
I don't like this way of nesting the OS declaration inside of any other
expr
On 04.01.2021 16:38, raid5atemyhomework wrote:
Hi guix-developers,
I'd like to propose an idea for constructing `` objects.
[... snip ...]
What are your opinions? Blech? Yummy? Is it worth exploring this paradigm
for adding particularly complex features to an operating system definition?
Hi guix-developers,
I'd like to propose an idea for constructing `` objects.
First, let me present the `decorate` form:
```scheme
(define-syntax decorate
(syntax-rules ()
((decorate ((x ...)) a ...)
(x ... a ...))
((decorate (x) a ...)
(x a ...))
((decorate ((x ...) y ...
