From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konrad Hinsen Subject: Re: [RFC] A simple draft for channels Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 16:04:17 +0100 Message-ID: <65b85e98-4253-2dc7-280a-d2d272752603@fastmail.net> References: <87bmhq6ytg.fsf@mdc-berlin.de> <87d1263qzt.fsf@gnu.org> <86fu6wh8aq.fsf@gmail.com> <87y3kocydw.fsf@abyayala.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <86po5zx12t.fsf@gmail.com> <87607rzbb4.fsf@abyayala.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35400) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eeMbD-0001kV-3v for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:04:31 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eeMb7-0004Qj-Fs for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:04:27 -0500 Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]:58081) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eeMb7-0004Q6-Ak for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:04:21 -0500 Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48CA9223CA for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:04:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ordinateur-de-catherine--konrad.home (lfbn-1-4195-159.w92-169.abo.wanadoo.fr [92.169.187.159]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id DF7BC7E3D6 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:04:19 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87607rzbb4.fsf@abyayala.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: guix-devel@gnu.org On 24/01/2018 13:33, ng0@n0.is wrote: > In my honest opinion: No. We can not prevent this. All we can do > is to provide a list of *official* channels. Beyond that I don't > think we should try to regulate what's in an unofficial channel > and what's allowed. +1 The best option in my opinion is to make it as easy as possible for users to find out the policy of any channel, and to do automatic filtering (for the day when there will be hundreds of channels to manage). One simple measure would be a field in the channel description that says "complies with Guix' rules for free software yes/no". An added benefit: it forces channel designers to think about the question right from the start. Konrad.