Yep. Fancy devs watching me coding some Rakulang in nano 😂

fair enough, however the intention is to show how one could create rules on Sparrow/Raku, not to show rules … Maybe I should have mentioned that …

for example this is more interesting example evaluation of net.ipv4.tcp_synack_retries"

regexp: ^^ "net.ipv4.tcp_synack_retries" \s* "=" \s* (\d+) \s* $$

generator: <<RAKU
!raku
if matched().elems {
  my $v = capture()[];
  say "note: net.ipv4.tcp_synack_retries={$v}";
  if $v >= 3 && $v <= 5 {
     say "assert: 1 net.ipv4.tcp_synack_retries in [3..5] range"
  } else {
     say "assert: 0 net.ipv4.tcp_synack_retries in [3..5] range"
  }
} else {
  say "note: net.ipv4.tcp_synack_retries setting not found"
}
RAKU

sorry, could you please elaborate on “shouldn’t copy” ? thanks

you are seemed to have edited your initial reply - "it should be sysctl.conf not syslog.conf " - anyway thanks for that, now it’s fixed, this was just overlook typo

Ok. Huge part of building microservices framework is infrastructure automation - like setup nginx load balancing in runtime, build and deploy apps from source code, configuring services, tcp ports, health checks, horizontal scaling (adding new worker nodes), setup logging and monitoring, etc, also this needs to be propagated to all cluster nodes, I am not going to do this from the scratch - Sparky is alike (rough comparison though) ansible but with UI and programmable on Raku, so as Sparky has already addressed the mentioned tasks, it’s logical for me to carry on with it. If we take Sparky out of equation, Raku by itself is reach and super flexible language to automate infrastructure, I don’t see why can’t I use it for that …

The plan is to build the entire system on top of Sparky which is written on Raku and extended by Raku