Alex Kost <alez...@gmail.com> writes: > David Craven (2016-08-10 17:13 +0300) wrote: > >>> Even so, if one insisted on using the recutils output in a programmatic >>> fashion (e.g. in a bash script), it would be best to run “guix build >>> --source” on the package names to obtain the actual source tarballs that >>> are used by Guix. >> >> I don't disagree. Alex what do you think? > > Do you mean about your original proposal? I am for it: I don't > comprehend why the source URL can't be displayed (especially since a > user can easily find it anyway), but I don't understand FSDG well enough > to judge, so I prefer not to participate in this discussion.
I have previously stated that I’m not convinced that we really need a serialisation of the “source” field in the user-facing recutils output. The patch was a welcome demonstration of how this feature would look like. As to the question about whether printing the plain upstream source URLs has FSDG implications I suggest that those who think that this change would be an improvement bring it up for discussion on the gnu-linux-libre mailing list, as we don’t want to ignore the concerns brought up by Mathieu and Mark. > (I hope this thread will not tear Guix contributors apart) It won’t :) I think it’s obvious that there has been some miscommunication in this thread. We may be able to avoid this in the future if everyone made a conscious effort at being courteous when writing and tolerant when reading. It is easy to miscommunicate in a textual medium. ~~ Ricardo
