From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mathieu Lirzin Subject: Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field. Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 23:09:56 +0200 Message-ID: <87invbc6hn.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20160805145804.26753-1-david@craven.ch> <87y44af52m.fsf@gmail.com> <87shuit01e.fsf@gnu.org> <87eg60g79l.fsf@gnu.org> <87a8gog154.fsf@gnu.org> <87vazcce0a.fsf@gnu.org> <87r39zcfkz.fsf@gnu.org> <871t1zoz98.fsf@gmail.com> 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]:43524) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bWroD-00004v-A2 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Aug 2016 17:10:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bWro8-0006zd-B7 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Aug 2016 17:10:05 -0400 In-Reply-To: <871t1zoz98.fsf@gmail.com> (Alex Kost's message of "Mon, 08 Aug 2016 22:07:47 +0300") 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: Alex Kost Cc: guix-devel , David Craven Alex Kost writes: > Mathieu Lirzin (2016-08-08 20:53 +0300) wrote: > >> David Craven writes: >> >>> Quoting Ludo from the thread you mentioned: >>> >>>> (Besides, our package meta-data would probably still refer to the =E2= =80=9Creal=E2=80=9D >>>> home page of the package, from which it=E2=80=99s trivial to get the u= nmodified >>>> tarball.) >>> >>> The discussion only applies to 'guix build --source' and I can't see any >>> indication from reading the thread that displaying the original source = url >>> would be in any way problematic. Can you quote something from that >>> thread that would indicate otherwise? >> >> I don't need to quote anything to think that: >> >> - Providing a user tool to fetch a tarball >> - Displaying a direct link to a tarball in our UI > > But a user already can look at any package info (including the source > URL) using "guix edit" command, so I don't see a reason why "guix > package --show" can't display the same info. I am just claiming that the two things above are equivalent and that as a consequence we can't refuse one and accept the other. I am not discussing the "why", only applying logic. --=20 Mathieu Lirzin