Hi Chris, On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 04:13:41 +0100 Chris Marusich wrote: > module. I don't know how that will interact with the rest of Guix; it > seems safer to just avoid adding that and accept this small discrepancy > in the bootstrap packages. It is simpler. It would still be possible to do it using module-ref, but I'd advise against it. How about just passing an explicit license to the bootstrap-binary procedure? >For example, the license of the >"bootstrap-binaries" package (i.e., the %bootstrap-coreutils&co) > defined to be gpl3+, even though it contains xz, which actually uses > gpl2+ and lgpl2.1+. Yeah, I don't like that either. > Since (I suspect) these packages are intended for > internal use, and since the canonical versions of these packages do have > correct sources, licenses, and so forth, I'm not so sure we need to be > very concerned about minor discrepancies like this. Yeah, it's just a nitpick. I'm fine with it being #f or with it being a parameter to bootstrap-binary. But (license license:gpl3+) when it's not actually gpl3 is where I draw the line. Wrong license like this is never going to be flagged again except by adversaries.