Currently host and user configurations are managed separately, respectively under hosts/<hostname> and users/<username>. More than separately, they are actually structured in parallel, which I prefer over blueprint's approach of:
hosts/<hostname>/hosts/<hostname>/users/<username>/
But the current approach (hosts/<hostname>/ & users/<username>/) is not semantically correct:
- leaves the impression that users are host agnostic, which in reality is not
- doesn't allow a user to have different configurations on different hosts
So blueprint approach is better structurally but I really don't want to nest HM configuration under nixos/darwin configurations.
Alternatives I can think of right now:
/users/<hostname>/<username>//users/<username>/<hostname>//users/<username>@<hostname>/
Maybe hosts/<hostname>/users/<username> can be symlink to /users/<username>@<hostname>/?
Currently host and user configurations are managed separately, respectively under
hosts/<hostname>andusers/<username>. More than separately, they are actually structured in parallel, which I prefer over blueprint's approach of:hosts/<hostname>/hosts/<hostname>/users/<username>/But the current approach (
hosts/<hostname>/&users/<username>/) is not semantically correct:So blueprint approach is better structurally but I really don't want to nest HM configuration under nixos/darwin configurations.
Alternatives I can think of right now:
/users/<hostname>/<username>//users/<username>/<hostname>//users/<username>@<hostname>/Maybe
hosts/<hostname>/users/<username>can be symlink to/users/<username>@<hostname>/?