From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ricardo Wurmus Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add p7zip. Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 21:16:53 +0200 Message-ID: <87d1lheore.fsf@mdc-berlin.de> References: <87a8gwxa9c.fsf@openmailbox.org> <87y44f4plm.fsf@mdc-berlin.de> <20ae08af155acdc7edd02b68afb9e66d@openmailbox.org> <20160808195835.GF18650@jasmine> <871t1y74fe.fsf@mdc-berlin.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39886) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bXCWW-00056o-G1 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2016 15:17:14 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bXCWQ-0006B0-5F for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2016 15:17:11 -0400 Received: from venus.bbbm.mdc-berlin.de ([141.80.25.30]:47567) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bXCWP-00069m-Nn for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2016 15:17:06 -0400 In-Reply-To: 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: kei@openmailbox.org Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org kei@openmailbox.org writes: > On 2016-08-09 04:05, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: >> Leo Famulari writes: >>=20 >>>> > I see that you took care of removing non-free parts in a patch and= a >>>> > build phase. Since =E2=80=9Cguix build -S p7zip=E2=80=9D doesn=E2= =80=99t run the build phase >>>> > users would still end up with a source archive containing the non-= free >>>> > parts. The best way is thus to remove things in a snippet. >>>> > >>>> > In =E2=80=9Cshogun=E2=80=9D from the =E2=80=9Cmachine-learning=E2=80= =9D module we remove supporting code >>>> > for non-free features in a snippet by cutting out anything between= some >>>> > ifdef markers, but looking at the patch I see that it wouldn=E2=80= =99t be >>>> > feasible for p7zip. >>>>=20 >>>> Also note that it is not completely desirable for nonfree code to be= =20 >>>> removed >>>> with a patch, and is one of the reasons Guix supports snippets in th= e=20 >>>> first >>>> place. >>>=20 >>> Is there a reason to not use a patch in this case? Or can we proceed >>> with packaging p7zip, using a patch to remove non-free parts? >>=20 >> We don=E2=80=99t want to have a =E2=80=9Creverse image=E2=80=9D of the= non-free code in a=20 >> patch. >> Arguably that would just be a derivative of the non-free code, so we >> also couldn=E2=80=99t freely distribute it. >>=20 > If this is the case, then should we alert the Parabola GNU/Linux-libre=20 > packagers? > The patch I submitted is the same one they use when installing p7zip=20 > from the > source code (see=20 > https://git.parabola.nu/abslibre.git/tree/libre/p7zip/libre.patch). I see. I think we first need to figure out exactly what license applies to which part of the code. A big chunk of the patch is to remove references to RAR stuff in the build system and the documentation; that could probably be removed with a patch. What is critical is code that=E2= =80=99s actually under the unRAR license. A quick look at the patch shows me this: > - Licenses for files are: > - > - 1) CPP/7zip/Compress/Rar* files: GNU LGPL + unRAR restriction > - 2) All other files: GNU LGPL (https://git.parabola.nu/abslibre.git/tree/libre/p7zip/libre.patch#n540) This means that we need to delete all files in (1) =E2=80=94 for everythi= ng else it=E2=80=99s just a matter of patching the files. If I=E2=80=99m not mis= taken this means that deleting the files in a snippet and applying this patch on top of it would be okay. What do others think? ~~ Ricardo