Hi! I wanted to note some findings regarding the improved mpd-configuration/mdp-service-type (thanks!) (5c5f0fc1135ff15f9c4adfc5f27eadd9a592b5d1, "services: mpd: Refactor MPD service.") after having reconfigured my machine yesterday. I've noted these two backward incompatible changes: 1. the mixer type must now be a string instead of a symbol, and takes "none" instead of 'null for the null mixer: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- @@ -239,7 +239,7 @@ (mpd-output (name "streaming") (type "httpd") - (mixer-type 'null) + (mixer-type "none") (extra-options `((encoder . "lame") (port . "6601") --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- It'd be nice if there was some deprecation warning and automatic healing code for now. The doc should also be updated, because it still mention the @code{null} value: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- ‘mixer-type’ (default: ‘"none"’) (type: string) This field accepts a string that specifies which mixer should be used for this audio output: the ‘hardware’ mixer, the ‘software’ mixer, the ‘null’ mixer (allows setting the volume, but with no effect; this can be used as a trick to implement an external mixer External Mixer) or no mixer (‘none’). --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- 2. The MPD user appears to be created instead of using an existing one. I was using my own account, like this: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- (service mpd-service-type (mpd-configuration (user "maxim") (address "0.0.0.0") (outputs (list (mpd-output) (mpd-output (name "streaming") (type "httpd") (mixer-type "none") (extra-options `((encoder . "lame") (port . "6601") (bitrate . "320")))))))) --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- and 'guix system reconfigure' is now warning that a user is defined twice, and my user description following reconfiguration is: "Music Player Daemon (MPD) user" :-). Perhaps it should check if a user already exists and not add it if it does? Else an error rather than a warning when multiple same-name users are defined would be more appropriate, I think. -- Thanks, Maxim