<andi->
NinjaTrappeur: how would you like to configure the unbound control socket? Shall we add nixos options or should the users define it in extraConfig?
ehmry has joined #nixos-on-your-router
<aranea>
well, if you ever want to write another module that uses unbound-control somehow, you'll need the socket path, so it sounds like a good idea to me to put that into a dedicated option?
<NinjaTrappeur>
andi-: for now, extraConfig would do it for me
<NinjaTrappeur>
aranea: do you have this use case ATM?
<aranea>
nope! :)
<NinjaTrappeur>
Another alternative allowing extensibility without too much boilerplate would be rfc42.
<NinjaTrappeur>
aranea: :)
<andi->
I actually have that use case..
<NinjaTrappeur>
I'm not about such a migration plan though.
<andi->
it is called our broken resolvconf integration
<NinjaTrappeur>
damn...
<NinjaTrappeur>
How do you feel about rfc42-style config andi-?
<andi->
sure, if you implement that
<NinjaTrappeur>
yeah, I was actually going to suggest that :P
<andi->
problem is this syntax doesn't have a grammar
<andi->
or some simple rules to follow
<andi->
some keys can be duplicates, others can't
<gchristensen>
ouch
<NinjaTrappeur>
><
<andi->
config validation isn't possible unless you deploy it
<NinjaTrappeur>
hmmm
<andi->
as soon as you set the `directory:` option it tries to chdir to that during validation
<NinjaTrappeur>
Sounds like a rabbit hole I might be interested to jump in (adding a upstream config validation option)
<NinjaTrappeur>
Not sure about the complexity though, better look in depth at the config format first.
<andi->
there is unbound-checkconf or something
<andi->
but that is as I said not really useful for us