GNU bug report logs - #30572
[PATCH 0/7] Add "guix system docker-image" command

Previous Next

Full log

Message #164 received at 30572 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Danny Milosavljevic <dannym <at> scratchpost.org>
To: Chris Marusich <cmmarusich <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 30572 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [bug#30572] [PATCH 1/7] gnu: bootstrap: Add trivial packages
 for bash, mkdir, tar, and xz.
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 11:09:26 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi Chris,

On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 04:13:41 +0100
Chris Marusich <cmmarusich <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> module.  I don't know how that will interact with the rest of Guix; it
> seems safer to just avoid adding that and accept this small discrepancy
> in the bootstrap packages.  It is simpler.

It would still be possible to do it using module-ref, but I'd advise
against it.  How about just passing an explicit license to the
bootstrap-binary procedure?

>For example, the license of the
>"bootstrap-binaries" package (i.e., the %bootstrap-coreutils&co)
> defined to be gpl3+, even though it contains xz, which actually uses
> gpl2+ and lgpl2.1+.

Yeah, I don't like that either.

>  Since (I suspect) these packages are intended for
> internal use, and since the canonical versions of these packages do have
> correct sources, licenses, and so forth, I'm not so sure we need to be
> very concerned about minor discrepancies like this.

Yeah, it's just a nitpick.  I'm fine with it being #f or with it being
a parameter to bootstrap-binary.  But (license license:gpl3+) when it's
not actually gpl3 is where I draw the line.  Wrong license like this is
never going to be flagged again except by adversaries.

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.