From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Jun 21 14:12:59 2024 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Jun 2024 18:13:00 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43259 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sKikt-0003Lf-Gd for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 14:12:59 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:57290) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sKikq-0003KE-TL for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 14:12:57 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sKhOh-0002mg-Aq for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 12:45:59 -0400 Received: from mail.webarch.email ([81.95.52.48]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sKhOf-0008Qi-GJ for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 12:45:59 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Mailerdaemon) with ESMTPSA id 0DBEC1A88775 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 17:45:51 +0100 (BST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=msavoritias.me; s=20210930; t=1718988354; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding; bh=bllGQiatsL/7EonUbQYSu6AGLel1HFDIlaXmIt7SDdU=; b=RVtoToIQXVSFuOSYEOC4MTaORTbTzJdKrg9RuK3qjpG3CrMFBvA4OJOTDAjvqBBQzjWgq3 yp9hAoAfg8mT9/9lrvLUhrNXQF1HTtd/zexOArtpf4TGQ8HiVFNBgowdAfogp4FB1q5Ynz /Ty6vgRkjzXkRSmfUIs0OIrwpwqDE5rzT4LvtF5PcdqeAijXa+0VJCrD2Hf9xDYSaGZgfg MOOyKnDXf8GTgzJ6XEtBd/jYKF1HrnhnX9eyRWk0KF4GU03MdBWwLR3oQE1kp3EuEr98cl E8iW3fKRR5MGgVLTh8iGw7sT07loTreE5s0H1cwTMHjpFLXgAcVshPYB+DEZsA== Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 19:45:40 +0300 From: MSavoritias To: bug-guix@gnu.org Subject: The Archiving functionality of guix lint should be opt-in and Documented more prominently Message-ID: <20240621194531.40c24620@fannys.me> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.1.1 (GTK 3.24.41; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Last-TLS-Session-Version: TLSv1.3 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=81.95.52.48; envelope-from=email@msavoritias.me; helo=mail.webarch.email X-Spam_score_int: -16 X-Spam_score: -1.7 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) Hey, There was recently a discussion around SWH and it came up that `guix lint` actually by default when you run it without arguments, runs all the linters. One of them being the archive linter that contacts SWH archive to let it know where to download the source code from (if its a public repo). I would like to propose to make that linter off by default. Because: The tool is name `guix lint` and it is not obvious (unless somebody runs --list-linters after --help) that it also does code archiving. To that end it breaks the expectations of the person using the tool to have their code silently uploaded to SWH. (if its a public repo again) What we should do instead: Instead we should document more prominently in the manual that `guix lint` also does archiving and encourage people to actually archive the software they write to SWH. (assuming they are the authors that is. A disclaimer to get permission from the author of the software should be also added if they are not.) And for the usecase of Guix, they flag can just be turned on by default since as a project we are interested in code archival. MSavoritias From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Jun 21 14:48:03 2024 Received: (at 71700) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Jun 2024 18:48:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43710 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sKjIo-0004fP-Rx for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 14:48:03 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-f52.google.com ([209.85.128.52]:38267) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sKjIk-0004es-IM for 71700@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 14:48:01 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-f52.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-422948b9140so2608985e9.1 for <71700@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 11:47:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1718995613; x=1719600413; darn=debbugs.gnu.org; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date:references:in-reply-to :subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=V79oCGjYQbMmIBbpo7iqlltbYAPxB7beVZzo9hGQ0lw=; b=jFGUcJb7qPu2/UECK00zFqa0EiX5oiG9EAnU4OO/lTQowg9wpLQeFaxLMyDXUjM6vp Wji7GCkrAyeIvAqLK7YL+QsryUfPYb91Xuc99nAQwxkTxrAgi1aIz3psb2en/hB+T+yu fJJCEb5rSGqwdDkWylVfgrnuZLqt2JuDrJoVdbAXRisGQvlv9G4ZDX2kzlvX01fmyUBe C7Vz8/20tboC7yJMsadt6nb3pm43mgLVzbF1idWN7brhUnEUmZHRZ/m3XFoiHGKbsdBo joJit88kfNvRg8NqKS0IfjMZvErD4euCLq2CerOYrn3rwM1woJKkrBbcAVU2nT/qLVB1 aq7w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1718995613; x=1719600413; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date:references:in-reply-to :subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=V79oCGjYQbMmIBbpo7iqlltbYAPxB7beVZzo9hGQ0lw=; b=toxzzvOqKET3f4r2lh4/yP8sVUEhhIWjQD8VLZWDb1hH4yPHKTXJfyxrNyiD3jxots AT3rJiXsbRXa5pd205Q9xfAvwLLSZcB7oUEL9jcBIZMFTijMfYb0ET6fI/AfWX4ur0wS a2df0cUZgSTRrgh3T3nOr3ZWCiI8wdLg9B83uhEbfdlYylL0QEbuQf4fIEMOYNBAhtX9 7VmKUxRAPQW1DUARo2DwK+CEuHVR7k9U1oOR9bp4HC7sXy3icQFVkJoBE7pxJXLav2cp HIFQZ46qDmrWgoJtG+LoZHCbv62ea9ZuJBDgShMtpPrw9ukm11eOyphqxd53zUYo674j dl6w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yy7vlID/OHvQid7XLxRr3qRxbKKMIINsRuRjUSRE9gjCc832ASD OeNRdp6Z5aGOd2+hnpzLYvTm/ave7+fv9TYTmYmQJqL2QqwDwJWFFOZ87w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEzeWkfjtMMGqK4PYx9R7V6UZn0uF/uHE9sSLqAzMAZoj9UT9hkYSDbd3heD4LUufIqRfJ/eQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:5108:b0:423:445:4aaf with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-42487107ba1mr855035e9.0.1718995613216; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 11:46:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lili (sncfv6-vip-ucpctl.hotspot.hub-one.net. [213.174.99.133]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-4248482f1c4sm24762375e9.10.2024.06.21.11.46.52 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 21 Jun 2024 11:46:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Simon Tournier To: MSavoritias Subject: Re: bug#71700: The Archiving functionality of guix lint should be opt-in and Documented more prominently In-Reply-To: <20240621194531.40c24620@fannys.me> (MSavoritias's message of "Fri, 21 Jun 2024 19:45:40 +0300") References: <20240621194531.40c24620@fannys.me> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 20:46:50 +0200 Message-ID: <877ceikuat.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 3.5 (+++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi, On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 at 19:45, MSavoritias wrote: > I would like to propose to make that linter off by default. Content analysis details: (3.5 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 3.6 RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus SBL-CSS [213.174.99.133 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (zimon.toutoune[at]gmail.com) 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2) [209.85.128.52 listed in wl.mailspike.net] -0.0 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE No description available. X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 71700 Cc: 71700@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 2.5 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi, On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 at 19:45, MSavoritias wrote: > I would like to propose to make that linter off by default. Content analysis details: (2.5 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 3.6 RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus SBL-CSS [213.174.99.133 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2) [209.85.128.52 listed in wl.mailspike.net] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (zimon.toutoune[at]gmail.com) 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [209.85.128.52 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE No description available. -1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list manager Hi, On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 at 19:45, MSavoritias wrote: > I would like to propose to make that linter off by default. Somehow I disagree with this. And I propose the generic approach that allows to exclude any checkers from the package definition using the field properties. See . Cheers, simon From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Jun 22 09:21:10 2024 Received: (at 71700) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Jun 2024 13:21:11 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44689 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sL0g2-0004gz-LR for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:21:10 -0400 Received: from mail-108-mta192.mxroute.com ([136.175.108.192]:45605) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sL0g0-0004gr-Q0 for 71700@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:21:09 -0400 Received: from filter006.mxroute.com ([136.175.111.3] filter006.mxroute.com) (Authenticated sender: mN4UYu2MZsgR) by mail-108-mta192.mxroute.com (ZoneMTA) with ESMTPSA id 190401b8a5a00017a3.001 for <71700@debbugs.gnu.org> (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384); Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:21:05 +0000 X-Zone-Loop: 3b5bffb72874a85964c2eec6fdfbbf288e2c4860c99e X-Originating-IP: [136.175.111.3] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=freakingpenguin.com; s=x; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date: References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=VmgBxutIUJTNRMBn8N3cjhEpqazpwVZQA1sWBBQUEIQ=; b=qH/C59ppEq5szXg3Kvj0QWtvx8 bGsbSng2QR6HJ9YTC58GDGlacqmrQU5UsmCw0xg6QEeg2W69i9ZviMGMBYT/a2oYQWO5LSFYfSUWE bc2QKwASNuqFypJkN5I6RD08hdrWlcJO8V2n8MHJTc456eNYKWhVEIfscvRYp+FD3lX07vGjXwT4n yyFo/5iJQKjiSWUjxAau5rLXhtYBec/JAms2AXW6ieLPuby23JCOmqhBd/gzPcOUbfN3r+gxetbQL Zaw9XEAz7IIyLSdiuYpUibTVjv/Rj6RMXtW2qlLr5wmij9anDvTCVjB4WOjo+hWCEPspxoiyBA+sA RcE+T7QQ==; From: Richard Sent To: MSavoritias Subject: Re: bug#71700: The Archiving functionality of guix lint should be opt-in and Documented more prominently In-Reply-To: <20240621194531.40c24620@fannys.me> (MSavoritias's message of "Fri, 21 Jun 2024 19:45:40 +0300") References: <20240621194531.40c24620@fannys.me> Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:21:01 -0400 Message-ID: <87iky1azb6.fsf@freakingpenguin.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Authenticated-Id: richard@freakingpenguin.com X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 71700 Cc: 71700@debbugs.gnu.org, zimon.toutoune@gmail.com X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) I think channel level configuration of some form for code archival is a good idea so individual channels can choose to disable it. I also agree that we should make the fact that guix lint does archival more prominent. I disagree with a statement that permission is required, but I'll avoid rehashing the discussion ongoing in guix-devel. [1] I think there is a good reason to support disabling archival at the channel level. Simon, do you think your patch can/will manage that? > Somehow I disagree with this. And I propose the generic approach that > allows to exclude any checkers from the package definition using the > field properties. > > See . [1]: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2024-06/msg00192.html -- Take it easy, Richard Sent Making my computer weirder one commit at a time. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Jun 22 10:24:35 2024 Received: (at 71700) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Jun 2024 14:24:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47810 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sL1fP-0007ED-0s for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Jun 2024 10:24:35 -0400 Received: from mail.webarch.email ([81.95.52.48]:52660) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sL1fM-0007E0-PA for 71700@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Jun 2024 10:24:33 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Mailerdaemon) with ESMTPSA id 6723C1A8346A; Sat, 22 Jun 2024 15:24:27 +0100 (BST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=msavoritias.me; s=20210930; t=1719066271; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:cc:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:references; bh=EIYVmOu1009Y+eDa2X9ZvCgfhT7w3JS4KcugMLn/NVE=; b=OWEfQDH0KP1nk784EqoPTXPeSBBJipFW5JzRb/GM4WFR8qH7AX/pI51IuWmYVtwsOzScaR GpSheJT6/XUnYGtYyU+BMw3rKxFfk+xMoFvc335wI/67YjXnt0ibHFQs5jQ6LB+h81mtt/ taEPEmOJ4Lm70/V3BHep4e8BaK1xwapgV7fhmb+ooC7Q7eniniMBY5Ki0M+4zmK/ixJRFB weIL9dW68QbtnAgSEjtFy0i2ZZEW8lPvPZ/grYoSc8XiTHIGnteNZ1OAzFJT0bwWgy9HTj /PV2ySxLc9IJnFcjdv/ZDylj3Xn/rh64lge5HWPBzmqoLLe6zjKiC1Hqq06cwQ== Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 17:24:19 +0300 From: Msavoritias To: Richard Sent Subject: Re: bug#71700: The Archiving functionality of guix lint should be opt-in and Documented more prominently Message-ID: <20240622172419.477c5b32@fannys.me> In-Reply-To: <87iky1azb6.fsf@freakingpenguin.com> References: <20240621194531.40c24620@fannys.me> <87iky1azb6.fsf@freakingpenguin.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.1.1 (GTK 3.24.41; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Last-TLS-Session-Version: TLSv1.3 X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 71700 Cc: 71700@debbugs.gnu.org, zimon.toutoune@gmail.com X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:21:01 -0400 Richard Sent wrote: > I think channel level configuration of some form for code archival is a > good idea so individual channels can choose to disable it. I also agree > that we should make the fact that guix lint does archival more > prominent. > > I disagree with a statement that permission is required, but I'll avoid > rehashing the discussion ongoing in guix-devel. [1] > > I think there is a good reason to support disabling archival at the > channel level. Simon, do you think your patch can/will manage that? That is still missing the usage of people wanting to run `guix lint` without having a channel. A channel level mechanism would be nice indeed but we still need a way to account for the archiving functionality for people who dont have channels or dont run channels. The proposal of making it explicitely enabled would work as a solution for that use case. That way the channel configuration would be to enable it instead of disabling it. opt-in/opt-out and all that. It also avoids the mistake of not realizing it exists or is enabled and accidentally somebodys code ends up in SWH without them meaning too. Not everybody reads the manual after all and we shouldnt do stuff we havent been explicitly required to do. In short I would say a channel level mechanism would help to "automate" the opt-in of running `--archival` everywhere with `guix lint`. MSavoritias > > Somehow I disagree with this. And I propose the generic approach that > > allows to exclude any checkers from the package definition using the > > field properties. > > > > See . > > [1]: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2024-06/msg00192.html > From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Jun 22 12:23:44 2024 Received: (at 71700) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Jun 2024 16:23:44 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51541 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sL3Wh-0003Dx-Kl for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Jun 2024 12:23:44 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-f46.google.com ([209.85.167.46]:39517) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sL3Wf-0003Db-D8 for 71700@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Jun 2024 12:23:42 -0400 Received: by mail-lf1-f46.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-52c82bea25fso404927e87.2 for <71700@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:23:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1719073355; x=1719678155; darn=debbugs.gnu.org; h=mime-version:message-id:date:references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to :from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Kliheu+rjUUG6r+YDwfniljwtkc30ANmdzR9PVSq1lQ=; b=ZTpT7Am/RHSdu9GjdmAvJfTyrTYl/FpVaMvhw6vJ93xAd3qTnf6y+bPK2/JygKdnmq l/TUGYJAQCFEOmiejLZ7eQHL05wpcTn5kJjhvzLIW9SM/NyxFl12zGPgVISWhTE85eSt NxTIUP8LYk9nvLWCBGdAIM1S3khu1mlnICL/E3ND0rKx3TtbNhxhPoMBwinMOSgHquy5 K8e/9QGOc6NEitnVpZwR0ClIFF1ZPbO2JA2HkQ64gP6W8jZvnv+Jjuyn7R1CavEmVi3N FdUz20ns1bdTHb8ABLRB8WpAzSz4LDJhp5BKmQSmQndOV2U44/7C/fmoGaAiowzCihBz dvKg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1719073355; x=1719678155; h=mime-version:message-id:date:references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Kliheu+rjUUG6r+YDwfniljwtkc30ANmdzR9PVSq1lQ=; b=nbGHoY5uZrZkLoA1NDN9oUb0f+xacmKrt/FAgIYjM/fOh1mV9PdN71yfwkMuQMMe70 0uHmwtnI0S4tiAORqtmm43tUbia+ZrI0bbuW35BWNRhm66vWJ+w9IYqb02mOgt1u8hyq MqCGyA3UpeU+JSjTWB5Vky3nTyfCtzJiB40QeyEv10a751JwG16/wLtngWVfEtewr5hX BpMjX32lzFNXsCqIeJou7STODBRFI+k7xn2oJjhc/4kozeuxSBZamaG/Z9cUXXFhy8lK 2EPuMAB59gSaoP8dANXAnOO8WflQiufXXidcA7Sq+0aRiujbXRxVWMkkBNGnhB5pec1j C38w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyNu+m2VSQrSNwyRDtrEqcdjFXMbHiyt6V+0alptTASMCFiPXPa YSpv8ycnhVYA1TDVyisEeNdpmNnJWjUvmkKALpn3/TYwiOKM19zUbklmiw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGFXpsYt5D756W35Uaq37Gq6mlILaYJIaECsWmOO0pNoRC+tuBmEqmddHX63RnKXHzvomvKEg== X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4ec8:0:b0:52c:7f39:b3b9 with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-52cdeab68bdmr805575e87.6.1719073355199; Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:22:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lili ([2a01:e0a:59b:9120:cf36:ad5d:499d:a92]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-424817b53f2sm75083605e9.25.2024.06.22.09.22.33 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:22:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Simon Tournier To: Richard Sent , MSavoritias Subject: Re: bug#71700: The Archiving functionality of guix lint should be opt-in and Documented more prominently In-Reply-To: <87iky1azb6.fsf@freakingpenguin.com> References: <20240621194531.40c24620@fannys.me> <87iky1azb6.fsf@freakingpenguin.com> Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 17:30:44 +0200 Message-ID: <87bk3tuh97.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 71700 Cc: 71700@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Hi Richard, On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 at 09:21, Richard Sent wrote: > I think there is a good reason to support disabling archival at the > channel level. Simon, do you think your patch can/will manage that? Yeah it could be helpful. However, my patch does not address at this level. I agree it could be an other complementary direction. But the design at channel needs to be thought a bit, IMHO. Cheers, simon