From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33650) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eyEEV-0006cf-Dm for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 06:11:08 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eyEEQ-00055j-EK for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 06:11:07 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:34815) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eyEEQ-00055Z-Ap for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 06:11:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eyEEP-0003Is-Ti for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 06:11:01 -0400 Subject: [bug#30572] [PATCH 1/7] gnu: bootstrap: Add trivial packages for bash, mkdir, tar, and xz. Resent-Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 11:09:26 +0100 From: Danny Milosavljevic Message-ID: <20180320110926.4791097d@scratchpost.org> In-Reply-To: <87y3inwiai.fsf@garuda.local.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> References: <20180222102933.4978-1-cmmarusich@gmail.com> <20180315040915.5556-1-cmmarusich@gmail.com> <20180315040915.5556-2-cmmarusich@gmail.com> <20180316231651.6889c44a@scratchpost.org> <87y3inwiai.fsf@garuda.local.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; boundary="Sig_/1A9yK9_fOZupSg916rrKJha"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" 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: Chris Marusich Cc: 30572@debbugs.gnu.org --Sig_/1A9yK9_fOZupSg916rrKJha Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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. --Sig_/1A9yK9_fOZupSg916rrKJha Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEds7GsXJ0tGXALbPZ5xo1VCwwuqUFAlqw3dYACgkQ5xo1VCww uqXlBwf+OmD/QKyr5nZCeoln83HBD5LsF970WYjXDBX/HvxcBO59nov9QMCluC7J muqV7yIXLVuG1Mf1hOIfiDW8ancy8xVDRbIQrGMVDKfmZdxGArJ/oY3iLeL12rOp Qw3UbonL/vkP+1M4S6ghfHV1f/OClsXm3Z6eQzUzGSdjrSlnkYJEaKPk8eWVyvbn NRFkGwYszib7AJyDX8VKC4K1hxci2im5YjeZvb1yWDU5MaI0DX1lHgyFyTVJAayP 5wXTH/tUi6nHXzf2lverUGkb/AD8Z5k1W5s4ZnR32arq3tkF6O8JXQ33jGLjrpLU JTS86st+B07TGzWPj3MqIplf9Z5yjg== =nFo6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/1A9yK9_fOZupSg916rrKJha--