...]
--8<---cut here---end--->8---
The "Guix and FSDG" relationship is very clear to me (also thanks to
this thread) and I wish some sort of FSF FAQs on this specific topic in
order to prevent future threads like this in the future :-D
Sorry for the
Hi,
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 at 19:00, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Clément Lassieur 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, wit
Hello,
Clément Lassieur 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.)
The spirit of the FSDG is that the dist
Giovanni Biscuolo writes:
> please can you file a bug?
> the bug could (should) be specific to the zpaq package
No, it's common to all packages (use 'guix build -S --no-substitutes' to
reproduce easily). And the documentation[1] doesn't say it shouldn't
behave this way. It says:
--8<-
clem...@lassieur.org (Clément Lassieur) writes:
[...]
> The former allows me to access zpaq64.exe and zpaq.exe although the
> snippet is:
>
> --8<---cut here---start->8---
> (snippet
> ;; Delete irrelevant pre-compiled binaries.
> '(begin
> (for-each dele
Hello,
"Thompson, David" writes:
[...]
> This exact
> circumstance was brought up in the early days of the Guix project when
> FSDG compliance was a big topic of discussion because Ludovic and RMS
> were making sure that Guix conformed to it. It is true that Guix will
> download source archive
Hi David,
"Thompson, David" writes:
> I believe this is incorrect and I will explain why. This exact
> circumstance was brought up in the early days of the Guix project when
> FSDG compliance was a big topic of discussion because Ludovic and RMS
> were making sure that Guix conformed to it. It
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 2:20 PM Raghav Gururajan
wrote:
>
> I completely agree with you. The way you explained, does show that Guix
> comply with FSDG. The thing is, the semantics used in current version
> of FSDG does not explain things well. That's why I pointed out that
> FSDG require revision,
Hello David!
> I believe this is incorrect and I will explain why. This exact
> circumstance was brought up in the early days of the Guix project
> when
> FSDG compliance was a big topic of discussion because Ludovic and RMS
> were making sure that Guix conformed to it. It is true that Guix
> wi
Hi, just a quick note to begin: Please do not cross-post to multiple
mailing lists because it tends to cause confusion for everyone reading
those lists. I have included only guix-devel in the CC list for this
reply.
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 5:02 AM Raghav Gururajan
wrote:
>
> (b) Facilitation of
Hi,
I'm sorry for my last reply. At least it makes sense to
get the definition right this time as this is a reoccuring
topic. So whatever comes out of this should hopefully be
enough to write about it.
What threw me off was yet another email which CC'd many lists
plus one individual person.
> Therefore, Guix DOES violate FSDG in this aspect.
If you search the mailinglist archives you can see that you
are not the first to try and roll up this argument. Ludovic,
Ricardo or any of the other Guix maintainers will probably
answer more in detail, but my short reply is that we've had
this d
program/software as output (Eg. --
disable-cleaning or --skip-deblobbing).
I can see two ways to end the confusion between Guix and FSDG, once in
for all. Either the FSDG remains unchanged and Guix gets removed from
the FSD list (or) the FSDG gets revised and Guix remains on the FSD
list. I am incl
13 matches
Mail list logo
