Hi, On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 at 19:00, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote:
> Clément Lassieur <clem...@lassieur.org> skribis: > > > Indeed 'guix build --source' returns the freed source. However, the > > original archive does end up in /gnu/store, and its path in displayed > > during the build. > > (Only if you build from source, without substitutes, etc.) If I read correctly, Clément just points out inaccuracies of the David's answer [0]: [0] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2019-11/msg00376.html << The most important part of this process is that the original source archive is *never* accessible to the Guix user via any Guix tools. >> Correct, even if Guix tools is vague. Is "guix repl" a Guix tools? :-) << The original archive is discarded and does not end up in the canonical location for Guix data: /gnu/store. >> Incorrect, as Clément shows. And it is not a bug of the very particular zpaq package, but a general feature of how Guix works. << Therefore, Guix has taken sufficient technical measures to avoid steering its user towards nonfree software and thus Guix is compliant with the FSDG. >> > The spirit of the FSDG is that the distro must not provide, recommend, or > link to non-free code, and I think Guix is following that to the letter. We all agree on that. I guess. In the initial Raghav's message, it seems that the argument is: because Guix downloads non-free code in order to install free software, then Guix does not follow the FSDG. This argument misreads the current FSDG. For example, any GNU/linux distribution needs to download non-free blobs and then removes them. Even, the FSDG webpage [1] points to scripts [2] that remove these non-free blobs. The keyword in the FSDG is "installable" and nothing is said about "download", from my understanding. [1] https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html [2] http://www.fsfla.org/svn/fsfla/software/linux-libre/scripts/ > For the record, this issue was discussed in the early days of Guix and I > don’t think anything has changed since then. The current behavior of > ‘guix build --source’ stems from those discussions (that was ca. 2015, > but I can’t find the links now). I have not found neither. However, from my perspective, all this seems more a troll than a real issue. :-) All the best, simon
