Ludovic Courtès schreef op do 28-04-2022 om 21:25 [+0200]: > The previous code abused ‘make-forkexec-constructor/container’ as a way > to spawn processes during activation, which wasn’t great either IMO. > > So yes, I agree there’s room for improvement here and that this calls > for some kind of ‘system*’ interface, if the need is common enough. > But! I don’t think this is a blocker for the whole series. > > WDYT?  :-) Agreed that it's not a blocker, but next I have to write something similar, I think I'll then propose some kind of variant of system*. I guess I'm personally more inclined than you to write abstractions that only have a single use. Greetings, Maxime.