From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Craven Subject: Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field. Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 12:12:19 +0200 Message-ID: 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; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59497) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bXQUu-0001kt-RT for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 06:12:29 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bXQUo-0006yV-RX for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 06:12:27 -0400 Received: from mail-yb0-x230.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4002:c09::230]:32982) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bXQUn-0006yL-KX for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 06:12:22 -0400 Received: by mail-yb0-x230.google.com with SMTP id e125so12539085ybc.0 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 03:12:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: 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: Mathieu Lirzin Cc: guix-devel , Alex Kost 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. David