Hi, Jack Hill <jackh...@jackhill.us> skribis:
> On Sun, 24 May 2020, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > […] > >>> Another improvement we could make here is improving the message about >>> Software Heritage in guix lint. Most of the other messages it emits >>> are things that the author of a package should consider improving. If >>> the Software Heritage message is less actionable, let's make that >>> clearer so that people don't think there is a problem with their >>> package definition. >> >> What message would you suggest? > > How about expanding section 7.7 "Invoking Guix Lint" in the manual to > include a paragraph of advice in the explanation for each checker. For > example, the advice could be could be "change the source to use > git-fetch" for "source-unstable-tarball", "exercise judgment on the > long-term availability of software sources. We think that code hosted > on the GNU ftp servers will be around for a long time, but code on > people's personal websites may not be. The greater the risk of the > software disappearing, the more important is is to use git-fetch in > sources so we can trigger archiving at Software Heritage" for > "archival", and "double check whether these inputs really should be > native [link to appropriate section of the manual]. If they really > need to be, leave a comment in the code briefly explaining why to help > future contributors" for "inputs-should-be-native". Regarding the ‘archival’ checker, the manual explains what’s at stake and what it does: https://guix.gnu.org/manual/en/html_node/Invoking-guix-lint.html I feel like there’s little room for improvement here. Ludo’.