Subject: Re: Understanding #:substitutable? and #55231

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 10:13:03 -0500

Maxime Devos <[email-masked]> 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