On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:57:41AM +1000, Carlo Zancanaro wrote: > On 14 June 2016 at 01:46, Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> wrote: > > > I think that imagemagick is only required while building, so it can be a > > 'native-input'. > > > > You can check what packages the built output refers to: $ guix gc > > --references $(./pre-inst-env guix build awesome) > > > > Imagemagick is not in the list. > > > > Thanks for this! I had assumed that the "guix lint" would tell me about > something like that, given the check "inputs-should-be-native". > > Is it possible for those references to be "wrong"? For there to be > something which is required at runtime, but doesn't show up in a "guix gc > --references" check?
My understanding is that `guix gc --references` reports the references that it finds by scanning the store item you give as an argument (I haven't read the code). So, if the packaged software needs to refer to something but does not, you will not be warned by `guix gc --references`. >From ImageMagick, awesome uses the `convert` tool at build time. I skimmed the results of `grep -r convert` and I didn't notice any other uses of the tool, but I might have missed something. Can you double-check? > > I noticed that several of the files have the "or later" text. If they > > are all like that, we could use gpl2+. Did you check if there are any > > files with licenses besides GPL2+? > > > > The lua files (in lib/) don't have a license heading beyond a copyright > year/author in the luadoc tags. Everything which has a license heading > seems to be gpl2+ (I had missed the "or later" text, but I've updated it > now). Okay.
