Maxime Devos writes: Hello, thank for the review! > On 11-08-2022 08:37, iyzsong--- via Guix-patches via wrote: >> + #$(origin >> + (method git-fetch) >> + (uri (git-reference >> + (url"https://github.com/rizinorg/rizin-testbins") >> + (commit "7d0c31ac7711de9c4d37f5047200dc5a407ff713"))) >> + (sha256 >> + (base32 >> + "00cmc7pws9m4hcm0bpdjm6n4agl5mqgczc4ccswfhywyzzvr7sqh"))) >> + "test/bins"))) > > What's the license for those binaries? I doubt all of them are gpl3+. > > I'm seeing a copy of libstdc++.so.6 in there. IIRC, it has a license > of the GPL family, which requires providing the source, so we need the > source code of it as well because of the licensing terms (the source > code of that particular variant of libstdc++, which might differ from > the version currently in Guix). Likewise for the other binaries. > > Personally, I think it would be more practical to ignore > rizin-testbins, even if that requires skipping some of the tests > (hopefully not all of them). I think those binaries as data, not programs to be run. Well, most of them don't have sources in the repository, so I'll remove it and skip the integration tests. >> + ;; Most files are under LGPL-3.0-only, other are under: Apache-2.0, >> + ;; BSD-2-Clause, BSD-3-Clause, CC0-1.0, CC-BY-SA-4.0, GPL-1.0-or-later, >> + ;; GPL-2.0-only, GPL-2.0-or-later, GPL-3.0-or-later, LGPL-2.0-or-later, >> + ;; LGPL-2.1-only, LGPL-2.1-or-later, LGPL-3.0-only, MIT, NCSA. >> + (license license:gpl3+))) > > You can put multiple licenses in the license field, using (license > (list this that foo bar ...)). For the license field, do we need to list all licenses of source code files, or the whole license of the package? And if the later, `(list license:gpl2+ license:lgpl3+)` would say the package is dual licenses, under GPL2+ or LGPL3+ at user's choice. I think with all those licenses, the whole package is under GPL-3.0-or-later. Correct me if wrong, thank you! Patch updated to remove rizin-testsbin and skip integration tests: