From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp12.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id uPOuImo9U2KDpwAAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2022 22:26:18 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp12.migadu.com with LMTPS id SI1lH2o9U2KWOQEAauVa8A (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2022 22:26:18 +0200 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3373AE9A9 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2022 22:26:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:46908 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nde8X-0008Ta-9l for larch@yhetil.org; Sun, 10 Apr 2022 16:26:17 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41916) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nde8H-0008Qs-NX for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Apr 2022 16:26:02 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:48870) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nde8F-0001zJ-5N; Sun, 10 Apr 2022 16:25:59 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Date:References:Subject:To: From; bh=cB+jj+FVDUs/OragyjyelunH89yTfUrBYqkj8b7OwGo=; b=Frc29kLQKLtFuYI5pILP zZ+AxfumlPXYsYgn7jDCIULnBfyWE2nwoZ2R+CPYHzwhGup+XEs02LTUuALSFDyrSJlormJezVZ8v y0CQK7uZjZJ2hjD2GSheNeVcicw2kGxLvBwn6KfciiwxdUshxlB2uWNVLUuBCyu6v1BrpzXnbo+o4 NdB+y850K/Wt2Qe2iX+pNUe6UIhFa5t0+OTnb4Mo2ew+Elc9+K/Dl/BDtvCJ1+RPrlmd+9pTo1VPu Ml4Oh86JQjUeOlYiLFfgE2U+Bw4Apq0ZfvKbBpmUYPJFgvmTv4R6qGSlYp02xUVwtle18+P1lL78H Ks4dEZPJGwM+pw==; Received: from 91-160-117-201.subs.proxad.net ([91.160.117.201]:65333 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nde8B-0007QX-Dw; Sun, 10 Apr 2022 16:25:58 -0400 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= To: Maxim Cournoyer Subject: Re: Autotools-generated 'configure' & 'Makefile.in' considered binaries? References: <9c2ca57d59672fc4f9ebc0230b08d8953030a456.camel@telenet.be> <87zgl5npss.fsf@gnu.org> <9cb1906a35eaf1692fbbc1312cceca18cca3d2ff.camel@telenet.be> <87tub7pwdt.fsf@gnu.org> <87o81exj8j.fsf@gmail.com> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 21 Germinal an 230 de la =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 22:25:53 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87o81exj8j.fsf@gmail.com> (Maxim Cournoyer's message of "Wed, 06 Apr 2022 12:35:40 -0400") Message-ID: <8735ik65ym.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, GNU Guix maintainers Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-To: larch@yhetil.org X-Migadu-Country: US ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1649622378; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=cB+jj+FVDUs/OragyjyelunH89yTfUrBYqkj8b7OwGo=; b=iIvzVF3Cp0KIC5ZAQwPYB/hgh4bya1O8ThlQS7/5l5a7TDXE1V2OLYz1s9etUgew0BMI/7 ixl1XOcdY5UQBstlqRBEoaRrat5YpNMUriFG4tYXB3ryRi2E6q8c9Ig/T9QWoV+4sHsOz4 CqW4cGhjwcvTsW3E3FT4ODAkFO5b7TOiIxTyHb6t5QLCh2G2+7tCm23lVPJrtVk0Lf4kU1 eMUGdAkwJjETShsPS9Ah/vxWSCZz8PdZzfMMQtLTzrLKogtJjqOaKEFdEuQ9JpcFEsO0aN Px7Rs1yAMeotzmjUeYZWv09wATCXAMrJof9uxDnB6hRMX0F0oMyclHtivDhJuw== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1649622378; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=HdP90LVvigj0fVFlmyl/Ir6sBKP5raSEy8EuqgfNedCBtmaIsq6jGjPmRtkd5OwHEMqcLD YQvJwOmfhd9PwAwNT/mFt+88xo9EhhrEEyfVw9SMgzs8SSq035UpdulchjQOAELJf04J5C LPG5QBp2BOyV3+9l7KmRsnpsG575sfcHooPEpOW8MGVXMMm/pIMda/Fxax+bbIXhe01+HK bkQrHil7anGlBfgufInOSDhofni4ijP0L5eIbCStVa+MF5rsWh/D2YimGT6osfFScp7j0Z iRMXMkdsvnXTrnArjK7RIWpMRm9l7WTaNILgHXOhiFHkmLLdGuEe6v5CAuJtrg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=gnu.org header.s=fencepost-gnu-org header.b=Frc29kLQ; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gnu.org; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -8.57 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=gnu.org header.s=fencepost-gnu-org header.b=Frc29kLQ; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gnu.org; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 3373AE9A9 X-Spam-Score: -8.57 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: gF6YDRWxb9Ap Hi, Maxim Cournoyer skribis: [...] >>> Changing all pre-existing packages, maybe. But doing this for new >>> packages (reducing review effort) and perhaps when a package is updated >>> (for purity) should be feasible I think? Then gradually things would >>> improve and eventually(TM) doing the switch in the bootstrap phase may >>> become feasible ... >> >> Yes, we could do that as a first step (in fact it=E2=80=99s already happ= ening as >> some projects no longer distribute tarballs). >> >> What do maintainers think of that policy? > > No strong opinion, but I agree that having a complete development > environment capable of building from the bare sources (e.g. a git tree) > is useful in general. On the other hand, using tarballs is often more > efficient and practical (it's made to be built by downstream users, > rather than by developers, so it includes everything needed). Release > tarballs are also often signed by the projects, which is neat. Right, authentication can be a good reason to keep using tarballs. Projects that publish signed tarballs are likely to use signed tags as well though. We just need to update =E2=80=98guix refresh=E2=80=99 to hand= le signed tags. (Another argument, this time against tarballs, is archival, though that part if now partly addressed thanks to Disarchive.) > So perhaps we can leave some flexibility there and not make it a hard > rule, but a case of best judgment? Yeah. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.