Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

Leo Famulari (2016-08-13 16:18 +0300) wrote: > On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 03:00:42PM +0200, David Craven wrote: >> Can you please explain why you don't feel competent? It's written in plain >> English, not AES encrypted English, so I have difficulty understanding >> why people think they can't read

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 03:00:42PM +0200, David Craven wrote: > Can you please explain why you don't feel competent? It's written in plain > English, not AES encrypted English, so I have difficulty understanding > why people think they can't read it and form an opinion about it (not this > issue

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

> Thanks, but I wouldn't like to participate in such a discussion. Yeah, I get the feeling that no one does. That's why saying something is an FSDG issue is like saying "we won't accept your patch and won't discuss with you why". > I just don't see a problem in accepting this patch as I don't >

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

David Craven (2016-08-12 13:05 +0300) wrote: >> Invested? Sorry, I don't understand. > > One definition of invest is: > devote (one's time, effort, or energy) to a particular undertaking > with the expectation of a worthwhile result. Ah, OK, then I'm not invested at all :-) > I just thought

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

David Craven (2016-08-11 19:19 +0300) wrote: > How invested are you in this patch? I decided that I wasn't that > invested and it isn't worth the trouble. Some things are not meant to > be. Invested? Sorry, I don't understand. Do you mean how much I need this patch? Well, I don't need it at

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

> Invested? Sorry, I don't understand. One definition of invest is: devote (one's time, effort, or energy) to a particular undertaking with the expectation of a worthwhile result. I just thought that you had invested some time and energy with this issue, and don't know what your expectation of

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

Ricardo Wurmus (2016-08-11 19:42 +0300) wrote: > Alex Kost writes: > >> David Craven (2016-08-10 17:13 +0300) wrote: >> Even so, if one insisted on using the recutils output in a programmatic fashion (e.g. in a bash script), it would be best to run “guix build

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

David Craven writes: > I hate giving Mathieu the satisfaction, since it opens the door to > raising an FSDG issue on any patch, either because you dislike the > patch or the author. Please don’t do this. This is not constructive. ~~ Ricardo

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

Alex Kost writes: > David Craven (2016-08-10 17:13 +0300) wrote: > >>> Even so, if one insisted on using the recutils output in a programmatic >>> fashion (e.g. in a bash script), it would be best to run “guix build >>> --source” on the package names to obtain the actual

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

How invested are you in this patch? I decided that I wasn't that invested and it isn't worth the trouble. Some things are not meant to be. I hate giving Mathieu the satisfaction, since it opens the door to raising an FSDG issue on any patch, either because you dislike the patch or the author.

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

David Craven (2016-08-10 17:13 +0300) wrote: >> Even so, if one insisted on using the recutils output in a programmatic >> fashion (e.g. in a bash script), it would be best to run “guix build >> --source” on the package names to obtain the actual source tarballs that >> are used by Guix. > > I

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

I expect someone to calmly and rationally reply to my argument and take it seriously, I don't think it's to big of an ask. I want this discussion to find a resolution. >> Asking me to start a discussion on the linux-libre mailing list over >> this is an unreasonable request. > I'm sorry that you

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

David Craven writes: > We already agreed to drop the patch. I didn't know that when I wrote my message, because I hadn't finished reading the thread. > Since this is a point of disagreement I think this is a discussion > that should be had. Having now read the entire thread,

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

Hi Mark, We already agreed to drop the patch. I don't understand why you'd want to pick a fight that no one is fighting. Besides where the tarball came from is a fact. Since this is a point of disagreement I think this is a discussion that should be had. I'll provide a couple of word

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

Mark H Weaver writes: > Mathieu Lirzin writes: > >> David Craven writes: >> >>> Quoting FSDG: >>> A free system distribution must not steer users towards obtaining any >>> nonfree information for practical use, or encourage them to do so. >>> >>>

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

Mathieu Lirzin writes: > David Craven writes: > >> Quoting FSDG: >> A free system distribution must not steer users towards obtaining any >> nonfree information for practical use, or encourage them to do so. >> >> We are not steering or encouraging users to do any

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:15:52PM +1000, Ben Woodcroft wrote: > I don't have anything to to contribute beyond psuedo-quoting Ludo: let's not > lose our hair over this! +1 I think our presence on this mailing list shows that we all have a common goal: the creation and continued improvement of a

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > > Ben Woodcroft writes: > >> On 10/08/16 22:27, David Craven wrote: I don't have anything to to contribute beyond psuedo-quoting Ludo: let's not lose our hair over this! >>> I'll let

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

> Even so, if one insisted on using the recutils output in a programmatic > fashion (e.g. in a bash script), it would be best to run “guix build > --source” on the package names to obtain the actual source tarballs that > are used by Guix. I don't disagree. Alex what do you think? This is a

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

Ben Woodcroft writes: > On 10/08/16 22:27, David Craven wrote: >>> I don't have anything to to contribute beyond psuedo-quoting Ludo: let's >>> not lose our hair over this! >> I'll let the fact that that could interpreted as being insulting slide. >> > > Oh, no that

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

> the technical issue at hand I disagree that it's a technical issue. Technical issues can be reasoned about and can be fixed. This issue isn't technical. > I think it would be good to get further opinions on the technical issue at > hand How do we get further opinions on the issue? > I'm

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

On 10/08/16 22:27, David Craven wrote: I don't have anything to to contribute beyond psuedo-quoting Ludo: let's not lose our hair over this! I'll let the fact that that could interpreted as being insulting slide. Oh, no that wasn't my intended meaning. I just saw this thread getting a

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

>> David Craven writes: > I don't have anything to to contribute beyond psuedo-quoting Ludo: let's not > lose our hair over this! I'll let the fact that that could interpreted as being insulting slide. So you are telling me that I'm being a jerk? That may well be. If you want

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

Hi, On 10/08/16 22:06, Mathieu Lirzin wrote: David Craven writes: I don't have anything to to contribute beyond psuedo-quoting Ludo: let's not lose our hair over this! ben

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

David Craven writes: >> unless you convince the Guix maintainers that my doubt are not legitimate > > I'm sorry but I haven't heard anyone except you express doubt. I made > several arguments to which you did not respond. Who else except you do > you think I have to convince?

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

Either you don't have a case or you are incapable of making one. Either way don't be a sore looser.

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

> unless you convince the Guix maintainers that my doubt are not legitimate I'm sorry but I haven't heard anyone except you express doubt. I made several arguments to which you did not respond. Who else except you do you think I have to convince? You made no effort on your part as I explained in

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

David Craven writes: > Hi Mathieu, > >> No that's not a desired formatting, it should be space separated like >> the systems list IMO. > >> But I guess we aren't telling the full >> story and should tell the user that we made post download >> modifications to the tarball to

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

Hi Mathieu, > No that's not a desired formatting, it should be space separated like > the systems list IMO. > But I guess we aren't telling the full > story and should tell the user that we made post download > modifications to the tarball to comply with the free software > distribution

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

> If I disagree with you doesn't mean I am wrong. Please don't act as if > you were in a position to decide who is wrong. You voiced your concern, I tried to find common ground. You referred to the FSDG. I read it to understand. You told me it was just my opinion of what is says, and referred

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

David Craven writes: > Sometimes it's hard to admit when you are wrong, but I think in > practice people barely take notice if you quickly admit you are > wrong and move on. If you drag it out, people are definitively > going to remember. > > Claiming that you applied logic to

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

Hi Mathieu, Sometimes it's hard to admit when you are wrong, but I think in practice people barely take notice if you quickly admit you are wrong and move on. If you drag it out, people are definitively going to remember. Claiming that you applied logic to arrive at the conclusion that -

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

Alex Kost writes: > Mathieu Lirzin (2016-08-08 20:53 +0300) wrote: > >> David Craven writes: >> >>> Quoting Ludo from the thread you mentioned: >>> (Besides, our package meta-data would probably still refer to the “real” home page of the package,

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

Mathieu Lirzin (2016-08-08 20:53 +0300) wrote: > David Craven writes: > >> Quoting Ludo from the thread you mentioned: >> >>> (Besides, our package meta-data would probably still refer to the “real” >>> home page of the package, from which it’s trivial to get the unmodified >>>

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

> Feel free to disagree, however when doubt emerges about FSDG compliance, > a consensus needs to be reached on . If you > want your change to be included in Guix, please start a discussion on > that mailing list explaining what you are proposing and ask if other >

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

Quoting Ludo from the thread you mentioned: > (Besides, our package meta-data would probably still refer to the “real” > home page of the package, from which it’s trivial to get the unmodified > tarball.) The discussion only applies to 'guix build --source' and I can't see any indication from

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

David Craven writes: > Quoting FSDG: > A free system distribution must not steer users towards obtaining any > nonfree information for practical use, or encourage them to do so. > > We are not steering or encouraging users to do any thing by displaying > the source url of the

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

Quoting FSDG: A free system distribution must not steer users towards obtaining any nonfree information for practical use, or encourage them to do so. We are not steering or encouraging users to do any thing by displaying the source url of the tarball, we are merely providing factual

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

David Craven writes: > I meant the little -s flag... > > -s, --search=REGEXPsearch in synopsis and description using REGEXP > > and I meant download, build and run manually outside of guix. > > It still sounds like that's what you are saying... ;-) oops my bad. So your

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

> My point is that if we are giving a direct link to the non-patched > source in our UI, the FSDG issue is the same. Just because I can't understand the concern, doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't a valid one...

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

I meant the little -s flag... -s, --search=REGEXPsearch in synopsis and description using REGEXP and I meant download, build and run manually outside of guix. It still sounds like that's what you are saying... ;-)

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

David Craven writes: > If I understand you correctly, you are saying the following: > > We shouldn't display an url to a tarball that may contain unfree > software, because a user might run `guix package -s` download the > tarball from the source-uris field and build and run the

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying the following: We shouldn't display an url to a tarball that may contain unfree software, because a user might run `guix package -s` download the tarball from the source-uris field and build and run the code, and accidentally run nonfree software on

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

Alex Kost writes: > David Craven (2016-08-05 17:58 +0300) wrote: > >> * guix/ui.scm (package->recutils): Format origin. >> --- >> guix/ui.scm | 18 ++ >> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) >> >> >> diff --git a/guix/ui.scm b/guix/ui.scm >> index 4d1b65c..e232548

Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

David Craven (2016-08-05 17:58 +0300) wrote: > * guix/ui.scm (package->recutils): Format origin. > --- > guix/ui.scm | 18 ++ > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) > > > diff --git a/guix/ui.scm b/guix/ui.scm > index 4d1b65c..e232548 100644 > --- a/guix/ui.scm > +++ b/guix/ui.scm >

[PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field.

* guix/ui.scm (package->recutils): Format origin. --- guix/ui.scm | 18 ++ 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) diff --git a/guix/ui.scm b/guix/ui.scm index 4d1b65c..e232548 100644 --- a/guix/ui.scm +++ b/guix/ui.scm @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ (define-module (guix ui) #:use-module (guix