From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Subject: bug#26302: [website] translations Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 15:56:48 +0100 Message-ID: <87k18d12a7.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20170329154040.ddscahwp2agknihb@abyayala> <16d07cb5a1d.ca69255821627.8144164908931126811@zoho.com> <20190908171638.cna67eearj4rbn2k@pelzflorian.localdomain> <16d18a5a9e8.12ab66c8254154.2756956535677606704@zoho.com> <20190915201819.3yxm25fayvbxwdpl@pelzflorian.localdomain> <20191007081502.wog4q4wjptvhmejf@pelzflorian.localdomain> <874kznbqa5.fsf@gnu.org> <20191102131515.sq6mlvwsfybagsd2@pelzflorian.localdomain> <87ftj38spn.fsf@gnu.org> <20191105073130.j5eft6jgqhkcnqf3@pelzflorian.localdomain> <20191105111112.xfryncx6ut3ggqaj@pelzflorian.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:37429) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iSMl1-0003by-LQ for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 09:58:04 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iSMl0-00083M-Il for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 09:58:03 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:60445) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iSMl0-00083I-FO for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 09:58:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iSMl0-0000Ad-BO for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 09:58:02 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20191105111112.xfryncx6ut3ggqaj@pelzflorian.localdomain> (pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de's message of "Tue, 5 Nov 2019 12:11:12 +0100") List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" Cc: sirgazil , 26302 <26302@debbugs.gnu.org> Hi, "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" skribis: > From a5d9180d960d244053bea0d59d6092060fe4c6dd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Florian Pelz > Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 12:08:54 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH 01/13] doc: Explain more licensing aspects of the '--sour= ce' > build option. > > * doc/guix.texi (Additional Build Options): Explain more. > --- > doc/guix.texi | 7 +++++++ > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/doc/guix.texi b/doc/guix.texi > index da2423b422..d8886fa494 100644 > --- a/doc/guix.texi > +++ b/doc/guix.texi > @@ -8328,6 +8328,13 @@ The returned source tarball is the result of apply= ing any patches and > code snippets specified in the package @code{origin} (@pxref{Defining > Packages}). >=20=20 > +Note that @command{guix build -S} compiles the sources only of the > +specified packages. They do not include the sources of statically > +linked dependencies, dynamically linked dependencies, or any other > +dependencies. When distributing complete corresponding sources for > +license compliance, you may want to play it safe and use the following > +@code{--sources} option instead. I don=E2=80=99t feel strongly about it, but to me, this is a discussion and= thus not quite in line with the style of this section as a reference of =E2=80= =98guix build=E2=80=99 options. As far as the discussion goes :-), I=E2=80=99d argue that the Corresponding Source in the spirit of the GPL is the derivation rather than what =E2=80=98--sources=E2=80=99 returns, since the Corresponding Source should = include =E2=80=9Cbuild scripts=E2=80=9D. I would argue that only functional packag= e managers are able to support such a strong notion of Corresponding Source. Long story short: the discussion is not clear-cut and I=E2=80=99m not sure = it belongs here. :-) Thoughts? Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.