Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat/service improvements #92

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Feb 2, 2023
Merged

feat/service improvements #92

merged 5 commits into from
Feb 2, 2023

Conversation

brianmcgee
Copy link
Collaborator

@brianmcgee brianmcgee commented Feb 2, 2023

Simplify the service implementations, re-using common code between them and removing anything related to management of mounts which will be done separately in a new module.

  • chore: update flake.lock
  • feat(modules): simplify services
  • fix(modules): do not add client packages to system
  • feat(modules): use ExecStart instead of script
  • feat(modules): remove redundant options in base service config

* switch to dynamic user and remove user/group creation
* remove bind mounts, using the systemd state directory
* refactor some common code and config into lib
If different packages with the same binary name are added to the path it will conflict. We explicitly reference the package in the service configs.
Also make them default values, allowing user's to override later without having to use mkForce
@brianmcgee
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@selfuryon when implementing #89 and #90 you should base your new services on the new pattern in this PR.

Copy link
Collaborator

@aldoborrero aldoborrero left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@brianmcgee brianmcgee merged commit b65afc3 into main Feb 2, 2023
@brianmcgee brianmcgee deleted the feat/service-improvements branch February 2, 2023 10:08
@selfuryon
Copy link
Collaborator

@selfuryon when implementing #89 and #90 you should base your new services on the new pattern in this PR.

Got that, I will do, thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants