From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id AO77FRgxnmFWnwAAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 13:33:28 +0100 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id mDK/ERgxnmHjaQAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 12:33:28 +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 F388D21AB1 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 13:33:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1]:55502 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mprSp-0003Xa-5o for larch@yhetil.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 07:33:27 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:59250) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mprSZ-0003X8-AE for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 07:33:11 -0500 Received: from pelzflorian.de ([5.45.111.108]:55946 helo=mail.pelzflorian.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mprSV-0004IF-N2; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 07:33:10 -0500 Received: from pelzflorian.localdomain (unknown [5.45.111.108]) by mail.pelzflorian.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E9BD63606B4; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 13:33:04 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=pelzflorian.de; s=mail; t=1637757185; bh=TIJWElgpawqhCPXVPHMUAQX2wRa4L8iY6rpCoZ+HX0w=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=hMfc162HFCVA6pQgZ+TeWZ8/kFcbjgAT7LLpjUjnNkJ2VdLrE3ZTgnkSBQSpbhJYf IaA7yV/iR3wT/cAkeZqizErk/zqj16ui8S9dzIVuy14lS4sLSXtOHVcma/Ohr+n35r ntJydNR/TgeqvhffkVW2Yzb9Xxu/DHKfEcK5NlV0= Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 13:32:56 +0100 From: "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" To: Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli Subject: Re: ZFS part of Guix? RFC? (Re: Effectively force all GNOME users to locally compile ZFS?) Message-ID: <20211124123256.guutnb6zgskejbya@pelzflorian.localdomain> References: <20211120020940.5efaa2b2@primary_laptop> <87v90no8n1.fsf@nckx> <20211121023324.0a3ba29a@primarylaptop.localdomain> <20211121103548.yi5lo6ymcnm22gfm@pelzflorian.localdomain> <20211122180255.ipauqebmoiyw4bb3@pelzflorian.localdomain> <87bl2aixvx.fsf@gnu.org> <20211124005004.109ef096@primarylaptop.localdomain> <20211124014519.1e227941@primarylaptop.localdomain> <20211124120136.l2dmta332z7c6bmx@pelzflorian.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20211124120136.l2dmta332z7c6bmx@pelzflorian.localdomain> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=5.45.111.108; envelope-from=pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de; helo=mail.pelzflorian.de X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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, raid5atemyhomework@protonmail.com, Domagoj Stolfa Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Country: US ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1637757208; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=W0PuPH+ewusLb6h0ywMDWmU/ku2yCUxlk8GLVmBsE04=; b=LnBypevEbzo2UWy2ooJQ1gJu7Ra3Ay68AYhnoqYUIeTynTxl57ubxVioreaP7RC/Esm8jc 0h9UM6Nj/jN8SuWYjEela7edYjK+KHB3S3WK73hMIjyH1+mi4lADXEPSCftQ6Z6ZzGkE3O HZEhG4t0yi2NN5UKR3IrWt3vZiWdQSSRzQ8wXSVmQAD+5LtN7zBtzczqOoo3L+gkQYYJHs pLwYZUrAB9a7X/qa0b1yROnsrGtdbmFM3MdUSEcxnppvxclQmNZoNnyA/OZxGtBJIXp9A1 5FeqWYRET5CHHvyjWB54g0DYK3w2yYTMmuonLWlmeEH81XWefzj1JFYWdin5rg== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1637757208; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=b/nXru4kt/3bQy3if7DqnuCypjj8w6U88GImy9WQjYK3N5Yn6dIxtbzHGWvK7dx0wNru/w B+zsl/RNg2CTzVXdST4tNIL0lUbQRgWVxQSCFfIIm+d6TRk9iNYVUPp9JlbX/oi/vaNYSg rN3X0hv7smCK2yzZ8yxZkCk/DaSZKc+gM+Fn5FoElciPx3KDxnrr0+ZbLVJPJq7KhCRcNV e6RehLJtrjdIF9ouSDMYUmrQCc7CO/fipt5WtiqjorYydyeZBdDlHhB4RapH/XrmocW5S1 rXQUsUIxzsMbz/vZHKcQjdLlvO3wM8bIl0PjlhGBrs3ablv5k045AE7Sa8dx9w== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=pelzflorian.de header.s=mail header.b=hMfc162H; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -1.89 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=pelzflorian.de header.s=mail header.b=hMfc162H; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" X-Migadu-Queue-Id: F388D21AB1 X-Spam-Score: -1.89 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: CeItFnJKZaNj On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 01:03:29PM +0100, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) wrote: > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 01:45:19AM +0100, Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli wrote: > > If that's the case then it would also be legal to redistribute binaries > > too as long as they are dynamically linked as the linking happens at > > runtime. > > The FSF is unable to have such a position. > > It seems unrelated to the FSDG, so GNU Guix need not care. Sorry I misunderstood. I think your claim is that the ZFS decisions listed by Ludo i.e. to disallow binary substitutes but to allow patches for a ZFS file-system object (once reviewed) are inconsistent. Right? I don't know if that convinces maintainers to change decisions. Regards, Florian