From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:49153) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1i8Lmg-0006ZU-VC for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 05:53:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1i8Lmf-00044c-PF for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 05:53:02 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:34269) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1i8Lmf-00044X-MB for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 05:53:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1i8Lmf-0003b8-Jo for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 05:53:01 -0400 Subject: [bug#37224] [PATCH 0/4] Add 'archival' checker for 'guix lint' Resent-Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190829231653.7607-1-ludo@gnu.org> <87blvqrmfr.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <87blvqrmfr.fsf@gnu.org> From: zimoun Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 11:52:03 +0200 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 37224@debbugs.gnu.org Hi Ludo, On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 09:41, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > zimoun skribis: > > > On Fri, 30 Aug 2019 at 01:18, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote= : > > > >> Currently, only 25% of our packages are not fetched with =E2=80=98url-= fetch=E2=80=99. > >> For the remaining 75%, this checker can only report whether the tarbal= l > >> is missing (and apart from ftp.gnu.org and a few other exceptions, it > >> usually _is_ missing) and cannot actually save it. And it is interesting that Nix has the same stats. ;-) https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/swh-devel/2019-08/msg00024.html > > Maybe I miss something, but for example guile-2.0 is not yet archived. > > I am not able to find it with their search resources. And `guix lint > > -c archival guile@2.0' reports "guile@2.0.14: source not archived on > > Software Heritage". > > Yeah, most not-too-recent tarballs from ftp.gnu.org are archived, so I > don=E2=80=99t know why this one is missing. We=E2=80=99d have to check w= ith them. Maybe I have wrong, but bunch of GNU packages seems missing. :-) > > I agree with the words on #swh-deve by olasd (Nicolas Dandrimont) from > > SWH that the automatic "save" should be optional (even if the default > > is save=3Dtrue). > > Maybe we could have a flag somewhere to turn it off? The good thing of > having it on (or opt-out) is that we increase the chances that the code > we care about is archived. :-) I agree. :-) Speaking of UI, I would expect 2 different commands: - one to check if the package is in SWH, say: guix package --is-in-swh - one to send a "save" request guix lint -c archival And adding an option to turn "the push" off, say: guix lint --no-archival Because when linting the process is generally iterative: guix lint # fix mistake guix lint # fix other mistake etc. and it will save network resource (latency, etc.) by avoiding to check again and again in this lint process; I guess. Or even something in this flavour should be a better UI: guix lint --checkers=3Ddescription,synopsis --no-checkers=3Dlicense,archival What do you think? Cheers, simon