[RFC 0068] Minimal daemon

rfcs/0000-minimal-daemon.md

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+---
+feature: minimal-daemon
+start-date: 2020-5-28
+author: John Ericson
+co-authors: (find a buddy later to help out with the RFC)
+shepherd-team: (names, to be nominated and accepted by RFC steering committee)
+shepherd-leader: (name to be appointed by RFC steering committee)
+related-issues: (will contain links to implementation PRs)
+---
+
+# Summary
+[summary]: #summary
+
+`nix-daemon` should be a separate executable.
+
+# Motivation
+[motivation]: #motivation
+
+With flakes and other development, we are moving towards a more "batteries included" Nix command line.
+We don't want any of those features in the daemon, however, because the daemon is a special trusted process that we should strive to keep as simple as possible.
+\[This is comparable to a compilation pipeline, with a concise intermediate representation nicer user-facing features "desugar" into.\]
+
+There are many things we could do about this, but I mainly want to establish some rough consensus around the problem while taking a small step to signal that consensus.
+Originally, each Nix command was its own executable, but then we combined them into one executable.
+I think this is fine for the main user-facing commands, but not good for the daemon.
+
+\[This RFC is completely separate from the ongoing IPFS work.]
+
+# Detailed design
+[design]: #detailed-design
+
+- `nix-daemon` will be a separate executable that only links the nix libraries it needs.
+  \[At this time, those libraries are `libnixutil`, `libnixutil`, and `libnixrust`, but this is subject to change.\]
+
+- `nix-daemon` should never need to understand the expression language and depend  `libnixexpr`.
+
+# Examples and Interactions
+[examples-and-interactions]: #examples-and-interactions
+
+I certainly hope there are no interactions!
+One of the bad things we should seek to prevent with this is the daemon unintentionally growing dependencies on more of the code base.
+
+# Drawbacks
+[drawbacks]: #drawbacks
+
+Not much.
+Build rules perhaps are slightly more complex as there are both separate and independent executables.
+
+# Alternatives
+[alternatives]: #alternatives
+
+ - Do nothing.
+
+ - Something more invasive.
+   But I much rather save that for later.
+
+# Unresolved questions
+[unresolved]: #unresolved-questions
+
+No known unknowns.
+
+# Future work
+[future]: #future-work
+
+There's lots of future work we could do in the vain of modularity.
+But there's also different, conflicting directions we could go in.
+The point of this small step is to punt on all that for now.