From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Kost Subject: Re: [PATCH] ui: 'package->recutils' serializes the source field. Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 17:38:06 +0300 Message-ID: <87k2fnz7zl.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87a8gog154.fsf@gnu.org> <87vazcce0a.fsf@gnu.org> <87r39zcfkz.fsf@gnu.org> <871t1zoz98.fsf@gmail.com> <87invbc6hn.fsf@gnu.org> <87ziombyrx.fsf@gnu.org> <87popglv3u.fsf@gnu.org> <87lh04ltg2.fsf@gnu.org> <32ade0cc-b971-a3fa-ea92-9b313955a373@uq.edu.au> <4e35f009-ba71-f430-65e6-e986365b0c77@uq.edu.au> <87twesd9jw.fsf@elephly.net> 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]:45803) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bXr7e-0002KH-Gz for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 10:38:15 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bXr7Y-0003Af-Fj for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 10:38:13 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-x243.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::243]:34402) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bXr7Y-0003AW-8I for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 10:38:08 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-x243.google.com with SMTP id q128so190070wma.1 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 07:38:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (David Craven's message of "Wed, 10 Aug 2016 16:13:48 +0200") 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: David Craven Cc: guix-devel David Craven (2016-08-10 17:13 +0300) wrote: >> Even so, if one insisted on using the recutils output in a programmatic >> fashion (e.g. in a bash script), it would be best to run =E2=80=9Cguix b= uild >> --source=E2=80=9D on the package names to obtain the actual source tarba= lls that >> are used by Guix. > > I don't disagree. Alex what do you think? Do you mean about your original proposal? I am for it: I don't comprehend why the source URL can't be displayed (especially since a user can easily find it anyway), but I don't understand FSDG well enough to judge, so I prefer not to participate in this discussion. (I hope this thread will not tear Guix contributors apart) --=20 Alex