Danny Milosavljevic writes: > Hi Chris, > > On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 04:13:41 +0100 > Chris Marusich wrote: > >> module. I don't know how that will interact with the rest of Guix; it >> seems safer to just avoid adding that and accept this small discrepancy >> in the bootstrap packages. It is simpler. > > It would still be possible to do it using module-ref, but I'd advise > against it. How about just passing an explicit license to the > bootstrap-binary procedure? Yes, that sounds like the right way to me. >>For example, the license of the >>"bootstrap-binaries" package (i.e., the %bootstrap-coreutils&co) >> defined to be gpl3+, even though it contains xz, which actually uses >> gpl2+ and lgpl2.1+. > > Yeah, I don't like that either. > >> Since (I suspect) these packages are intended for >> internal use, and since the canonical versions of these packages do have >> correct sources, licenses, and so forth, I'm not so sure we need to be >> very concerned about minor discrepancies like this. > > Yeah, it's just a nitpick. I'm fine with it being #f or with it being > a parameter to bootstrap-binary. But (license license:gpl3+) when it's > not actually gpl3 is where I draw the line. Wrong license like this is > never going to be flagged again except by adversaries. I understand. It isn't hard to fix, so here's a new patch that adds correct licenses. How does it look? -- Chris