On May 25, 2020 5:17:02 PM EDT, "Ludovic Courtès" <l...@gnu.org> wrote: >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.
I think you're right. We have made it this far without too much confusion, and I agree that the text in that section is good. Let's leave it alone. Best, Jack