Hi, Eelco Dolstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think I would like separating the Nix expressions for non-free > packages > from Nixpkgs, since that would make live more difficult for users who do want > to > use a non-free package (say the NVIDIA driver), but it would be a good idea > (as > discussed before) to have a meta attribute to mark non-free packages. Then > the > system can automatically warn you if there are any non-free packages in the > dependency graph of a particular configuration. This would also help us to > prevent non-free packages from being distributed (in binary form) in the > Nixpkgs > channel, which has happened accidentally in the past (e.g. Java 5 due to free > packages having it as a dependency). I think the best solution would be to leverage the existing `meta.license' attribute to that end. The problem is that many packages currently lack that attribute, especially non-free packages. As a starting point, `nix-env' could be augmented, say, with a `--free' option such that it aborts when an element of the dependency graph as "non-free" as `meta.license' or lacks `meta.license'. That would give people interested in free software an incentive to add `meta.license' to free software packages that lack it. What do you think? > OTOH when we have such an attribute, we can easily generate a Nixpkgs > distribution that doesn't contain non-free packages. The main question will be whether the "official NixOS ISO" should include non-free packages, since the user can only really choose once the base system is installed. Thanks, Ludo'. _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.cs.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
