On 09-08-2022 21:08, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote:
To be clear, do you mean you: * think it's not better, maybe even worse * think it's not_much_ better (but still_slightly_ better) * are undecided * or something else ? Also, "guix build -S" returns the source code (after snippet / patch, if any), not its derivation. For the latter: "guix build -S -d"FWIW I don't think mentioning patch-and-repack is too helpful here either. Also, I'd like to use consistent wording at least within this section, so here "source" means "upstream source" whereas "source derivation" is a shorthand for the stuff Guix builds. Yes, the derivation is not the same thing as the output, but I again fail to see how being overly precise is helpful. That being said, I'm open to suggestions.
I am not reading an answer to my question.I don't think I've mentioned patch-and-repack (at least not by name, which you seem to be referring to?).
I would not recommend "source = upstream source", as the more general meaning is used in (guix)Introduction and <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html> and elsewhere, otherwise terminology would become inconsistent, which can lead to misinterpretations.
I don't think there's such a thing as 'overly precise'. My suggestion is the same as your suggestion:
You could s/source derivation/the result of
@code{guix build -S}/, but I don't think that's much better.
Greetings, Maxime.
OpenPGP_0x49E3EE22191725EE.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
