I agree that we should better document that policy. I think we could go further, but it's ok to document the common denominator first. To me, the structure you suggest is not great, but I don't have issues with the content.
Le 25 juillet 2022 13:18:28 GMT+02:00, Maxime Devos <maximede...@telenet.be> a écrit : > >On 25-07-2022 07:21, Julien Lepiller wrote: >> I don't like the wording at all. You're mixing too many things together. >Feel free to try to separate the things, but going previous discussions, many >tings are important, and they appear all to be inseparable. >> >> I think it would be better to first document the guiding principles (eg. the >> goal that there are no non-free software in Guix, going for the simplest >> thing, etc) and then derive rules for specific cases, based on these >> principles: >> >> How do I remove non-free software? -> snippet because … >> >> How do I remove bundled libraries? -> snippet or phase because … >> >> How do I fix a build issue? -> patch or snippet if this affects building >> from source, can also be a phase if the result of --sources can still build >> >> A test issue? >> >> … >> >> This leaves some cases up to interpretation, but that's probably not so >> different from "it's not an absolute rule". It's also much clearer and >> quicker to figure out in which case you are. If not documented as a case, >> you can fall back to the general principles. > >TBC, is the issue here the structure of the section, or some individual rules? >In the former case, I could try rewriting it a bit to follow your proposed >structure. > >Greetings, >Maxime.
