From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mathieu Lirzin Subject: Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field. Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 13:30:13 +0200 Message-ID: <87popglv3u.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20160805145804.26753-1-david@craven.ch> <87y44af52m.fsf@gmail.com> <87shuit01e.fsf@gnu.org> <87eg60g79l.fsf@gnu.org> <87a8gog154.fsf@gnu.org> <87vazcce0a.fsf@gnu.org> <87r39zcfkz.fsf@gnu.org> <871t1zoz98.fsf@gmail.com> <87invbc6hn.fsf@gnu.org> <87ziombyrx.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46336) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bXRiH-0004z2-C8 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 07:30:22 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bXRiE-0001mZ-1u for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 07:30:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: (David Craven's message of "Wed, 10 Aug 2016 12:12:19 +0200") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: David Craven Cc: guix-devel , Alex Kost 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 comply with the free software >> distribution guidelines. > > Can we move forward on this then if we incorporate Alex's changes and > these suggestions? > > I'll provide a few pointers for a stronger argument for the next one > you have (if you don't mind) ;-) > > You made the statement that the FSDG wasn't clear enough on the > subject to make a decision and was open for interpretation. Then you > made use of "case law" referring to the guix package -S thread. > > You also made the statement: >> I am just claiming that the two things above are equivalent and that as >> a consequence we can't refuse one and accept the other. I am not >> discussing the "why", only applying logic. > > I would have expected you to provide a compelling argument for why > these things are equivalent, since it wasn't obvious to me. Making use > of case law is a valid argument, but you'd have to explain why and how > it applies to cast reasonable doubt that this is a FSDG issue. IMO you > did not do so sufficiently to merit escalating the discussion to a > different mailing list. When someone wants to introduce some change, it is up to him to convince others to accept this change, not the other way. This discussion is already escalating in a way where you are waisting your energy (and mine too), Guix-devel is not the relevant place for talking about FSDG compliance. I have already explain my reasons and I will not repeat myself. If you don't want to take the time to discuss this on the relevant mailing list, then nothing will move unless you convince the Guix maintainers that my doubt are not legitimate. -- Mathieu Lirzin