Maxime Devos <maximede...@telenet.be> writes: > The incoherency is the problem. If you want ZFS, and your belief ok > ZFS being legally OK is based on P being true, then it follows you > have > > (a) ensure that P is true/rectify !P situations, > (b) or give up on ZFS > (c) (third alternative) or find another justification and ensure its > preconditions are met. > > Yet, as a group, people that want ZFS in Guix have added ZFS without > (a) and (c).
Please refrain from calling me incoherent. This patch was specifically designed to work within the bounds of Guix' restrictions, and has been pointed out, has general use, not just for ZFS even if that was my initial motivation. It was designed to be of general use, which also would allow me my own particular uses. I did not understand your objections over the substitutable flag at the time, and I still don't completely. That's not incoherency, that's because a) this is inherently complicated, and b) ‘#:substitutable?’ has arguably broken default behavior and no way to currently fix it. I'm staying out of this otherwise. This patch has been a particular sore point for me and was a major reason I stepped back from Guix. I'm glad others are finding it useful, and I wish them well in getting it integrated, but I don't have it in me anymore to deal with the patch process in this project. -bjc
