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 yJY7JJBPy15oQAAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 25 May 2020 04:54:40 +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 UKArIJBPy15uQgAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 25 May 2020 04:54:40 +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 2DC3894017B for ; Mon, 25 May 2020 04:54:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:41274 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jd58J-00013G-6O for larch@yhetil.org; Mon, 25 May 2020 00:54:39 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51740) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jd58B-000135-7O for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 May 2020 00:54:31 -0400 Received: from minsky.hcoop.net ([104.248.1.95]:40292) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jd58A-00026E-9A; Mon, 25 May 2020 00:54:30 -0400 Received: from marsh.hcoop.net ([45.55.52.66]) by minsky.hcoop.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1jd587-0001bc-C1; Mon, 25 May 2020 00:54:27 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 00:54:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Jack Hill X-X-Sender: jackhill@marsh.hcoop.net To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Ludovic_Court=E8s?= Subject: Re: best practise between git-fetch vs url-fetch? In-Reply-To: <87lflh13fj.fsf@gnu.org> Message-ID: 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> <87lflh13fj.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="925712948-1751730647-1590382467=:5735" Received-SPF: pass client-ip=104.248.1.95; envelope-from=jackhill@jackhill.us; helo=minsky.hcoop.net X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/05/25 00:54:28 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 3.11 and newer X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action 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: 0.99 X-TUID: 14NwjKiwm4zC This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --925712948-1751730647-1590382467=:5735 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Sun, 24 May 2020, Ludovic Courtès wrote: […] >> 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? How about expanding section 7.7 "Invoking Guix Lint" in the manual to include a paragraph of advice in the explanation for each checker. For example, the advice could be could be "change the source to use git-fetch" for "source-unstable-tarball", "exercise judgment on the long-term availability of software sources. We think that code hosted on the GNU ftp servers will be around for a long time, but code on people's personal websites may not be. The greater the risk of the software disappearing, the more important is is to use git-fetch in sources so we can trigger archiving at Software Heritage" for "archival", and "double check whether these inputs really should be native [link to appropriate section of the manual]. If they really need to be, leave a comment in the code briefly explaining why to help future contributors" for "inputs-should-be-native". Obviously, those aren't fit to be included in the manual as is, but hopefully they give a good idea of what I was thinking. guix lint could remind people to check the manual for advice when it detects lint. That said, I am open to other options, including that this isn't a problem that we need to solve. Best, Jack --925712948-1751730647-1590382467=:5735--