Reconcile: adopt initialization's consolidated HQ as canonical, re-home this session's new work #24
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
status: fixed
|
||||
status: located
|
||||
opened: 2026-09-01
|
||||
located-in: [mesh-control]
|
||||
fixed-by: mesh-control 53eb000
|
||||
fixed-by: partly — mesh-control 53eb000, withdrawn in 83c6a2f
|
||||
amended-design:
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -69,17 +69,28 @@ arrangement being replaced, which put everything under one directory per service
|
||||
right here is a separate question, and a bigger one — it decides what a person backs up, and what
|
||||
survives a module being removed.
|
||||
|
||||
## Fixed
|
||||
## Half fixed
|
||||
|
||||
**All fourteen are declared**, across the forge, the mail system, the store and the object store —
|
||||
each mount now resolves to a `directory` or to a file the module already names.
|
||||
|
||||
**And a manifest that does not declare one is refused**, where it is written. The manifests being
|
||||
right today was a coincidence: nothing said they had to be, so the next volume somebody added
|
||||
would have been undeclared again and nothing would have said so. A path under a declared directory
|
||||
counts as declared, as do a module's own secrets, its grants, and what it receives.
|
||||
**Enforcing it was tried and withdrawn**, and the withdrawal is the interesting half. A refusal
|
||||
for any mount no resource declares refuses the **builder**, which mounts the container runtime's
|
||||
socket. That socket is not the builder's data. It does not belong to the module, it already exists,
|
||||
and declaring it as one of the module's own directories would be a lie that the host would act on.
|
||||
|
||||
Refused in the control plane rather than on the machine, which cannot tell the difference: by the
|
||||
time the host sees the mount it is being asked to create a directory, which it is perfectly able to
|
||||
do. The fault is in the manifest, so it is named at the manifest — the same argument as the action
|
||||
refusal it now sits beside.
|
||||
So the rule is right about data and wrong about everything else, because the manifest cannot
|
||||
currently say which a path is. Two kinds of mount are spelled identically:
|
||||
|
||||
- **the directory my data lives in** — created if absent, owned by the module, protected by
|
||||
[ADR 0030](../../02-DECISIONS/0030-data-outlives-the-mesh-that-declared-it.md)
|
||||
- **a machine facility I was granted** — a socket, a device; it exists, the machine owns it, and
|
||||
the module is being given access to it
|
||||
|
||||
`capabilities` is the closest existing thing to the second and names no paths. Inventing a field
|
||||
to separate them is a design decision, so it is recorded here rather than made to get a check
|
||||
green.
|
||||
|
||||
**Until then the manifests are right by coincidence**, which is the state this issue was opened
|
||||
about. What is kept is a check that every real manifest still parses — worth nothing against this
|
||||
fault, and the reason the next attempt finds out in a second rather than in a fifteen-minute run.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user