From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id UDFkJHzZyl6RDAAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 24 May 2020 20:30:52 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2 with LMTPS id yPtXIHzZyl68dwAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 24 May 2020 20:30:52 +0000 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 0B0979404C8 for ; Sun, 24 May 2020 20:30:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:32846 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jcxGl-0004QC-0I for larch@yhetil.org; Sun, 24 May 2020 16:30:51 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42560) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jcxGS-0004Pm-Lx for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 24 May 2020 16:30:32 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:37286) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jcxGP-00018n-0D; Sun, 24 May 2020 16:30:29 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=54818 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jcxGO-0005qG-B9; Sun, 24 May 2020 16:30:28 -0400 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= To: Jack Hill Subject: Re: best practise between git-fetch vs url-fetch? References: <20200306091524.5044.11103@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20200306091525.E8A1621163@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <87o8t9lfci.fsf@devup.no> <871rq5bjzf.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87lfodl6u5.fsf@devup.no> <87tv2vgdlg.fsf@gnu.org> <87lfo72b8i.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <878shv3dzz.fsf@nckx> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 6 Prairial an 228 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, 24 May 2020 22:30:24 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Jack Hill's message of "Thu, 14 May 2020 12:16:29 -0400 (EDT)") Message-ID: <87lflh13fj.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (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: 2.1.23 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, Brice Waegeneire Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Scanner: scn0 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -0.01 X-TUID: cKsEui1W1W5F Hi, Jack Hill skribis: > It seems a bigger problem is when the build method for the git > repository and release tarball are different. In many packages this is > because of the pre-generated autotools build system in the release > tarballs. Should we bootstrap the autotools build system even when > building from a release tarball? As I understand it, autotools has > historically been treated this way in part to allow building on > systems without the right version of autotools, but is that really a > problem in Guix? Why should it be treated differently than other > pre-generated artifacts which we rebuild? You=E2=80=99re pointing out a contradiction here. On one hand, we take advantage that Autotools-based programs require nothing but a POSIX shell and make to be built, unlike most other build systems, which greatly simplifies our dependency tree. On the other hand, we=E2=80=99re striving to build everything from source, and Autotools-generated files look like elephants in this room. Debian has been dismissing those files for a long time. Probably we should aim towards not using pre-built Autotools generated files and, by extension, probably not using pre-built tarballs when VCS checkouts are available. It=E2=80=99s kinda happening on leaf packages, often upstream developers pe= ople don=E2=80=99t bother running =E2=80=9Cmake dist=E2=80=9D. It=E2=80=99ll ta= ke some time before tarballs disappear and needs some thought in particular from a bootstrapping standpoint. > 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? Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.