From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id eL+kBXKnVGHHGQEAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 19:50:42 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id aCE+AXKnVGFUXgAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 17:50:42 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C53F8D20 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 19:50:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:56692 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mVdj0-0001XH-SD for larch@yhetil.org; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 13:50:34 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:52676) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mVdiU-0001VM-MG for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 13:50:02 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:38592) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mVdiU-0004M9-Dz for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 13:50:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mVdiU-0008AP-9w for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 13:50:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#50620] [PATCH 1/2] guix: packages: Document 'computed-origin-method'. Resent-From: zimoun Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 17:50:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 50620 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Liliana Marie Prikler Cc: Mark H Weaver , 50620@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 50620-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B50620.163293775431323 (code B ref 50620); Wed, 29 Sep 2021 17:50:02 +0000 Received: (at 50620) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Sep 2021 17:49:14 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50138 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mVdhi-000899-98 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 13:49:14 -0400 Received: from mail-qv1-f42.google.com ([209.85.219.42]:40869) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mVdhS-00088K-8y for 50620@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 13:49:13 -0400 Received: by mail-qv1-f42.google.com with SMTP id n6so1955378qvp.7 for <50620@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 10:48:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=tdMberHwvY0JM31+/fr51iEKsYqdl8r6OOnwPHMzE04=; b=GIa+Mex/NlnhmCg97FCrSfQdiNdzGtsFr2RreiUX/T9HL68RrbRK4wsn6ht15lyF5o 6eux7Kw4eDk4pEZe1mXXcYpu/Eor0MBm/uYCgeKxCxmFlhtIulCzcq9ewabvMUx7Ecr+ kD+++pWvbUo2TSwNcDvwWxTE7in4DMhV1US9NOTkh4Aiwi0phJkXyDjE9Ut0tRVN+Ek2 mU4ZpOsXStqbfMd5674KXj/IK1jzKhZ3iKpMY10LDXkt4VwxAAkvk3Q4wTUGtyyMehax jft1n2PTTkwmh9Mhk4q6oDZ7KVI1Cj0mLH/zFSzNm/SGNmcKjwWCY8dciPRJf1h8J5/5 APYA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=tdMberHwvY0JM31+/fr51iEKsYqdl8r6OOnwPHMzE04=; b=VWFaar4XaYC7AAZ+AJ+kiX+5ewknAV4NruXzBXGHhhId5neDffIygNzuSCpKmwOf0M JyZlEsqDsfxYGKu++GqjRC/RJ0j7h0GbjxZxQyiESMxwSrNc2tFo226HtRClWx+kB4pv 5I8EHv0/E/o9JP69d/RmwvJRGPkv7glVICrnEufXZnP5HoNuqoHpAKaU7or9cdKVbtlE aPSrpCru6vrZrRK22z6jrf0UwuUDhFaqOEnJd8IoAJE1Vhil7hYBmnGpuZY6w6/rsj+Y yeRKwX2C5bO1SSWvLRkAST5Wrzp54KxfZ6hnWz26a0l6dla9gW6YPCNw49Kk3HW2Qct6 AQvQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533cMJJPzWQQkS9/5km2N+INpigx3K+fwr1vggM8MYrTC0rWNwWU OsPvae14bjoyZreieqf52i3l1q44LwJRtT21l4pEj24LPqE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzqX5k2Opj6EfPqrDXU0LmQNnfCvfaWmCY7v2x4dfzCmqDH2FYqbvjgTMdKstTOuGe70j38eg1iCY2cUl6p6E4= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:1425:: with SMTP id o5mr1271468qvx.5.1632937732676; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 10:48:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210916114734.2686426-1-zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> <9b6ee27ff10e1042a5d61d0f93d957cf760e9ecb.camel@gmail.com> <87v930ay5y.fsf@netris.org> <87pmstghx0.fsf@netris.org> <1803ff0456849f456c6994d47cbe50d1a8ff6a09.camel@gmail.com> <56dcce10a751153d89f515028cd18c9125f6b84f.camel@gmail.com> <756ae01852047a7adc2522c025c8cd7283dc7e55.camel@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <756ae01852047a7adc2522c025c8cd7283dc7e55.camel@gmail.com> From: zimoun Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 19:48:41 +0200 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: guix-patches@gnu.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1632937841; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:resent-cc:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-message-id:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references: list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post: dkim-signature; bh=tdMberHwvY0JM31+/fr51iEKsYqdl8r6OOnwPHMzE04=; b=jF/9dC1UKWlFKpKfgGdQpGIcMBq5U/ttHaXGZjsCK/E9e7Z45q79Qsh5Wz2IwMHqr+nQjq KFVp0vUzfw3keYH0bEfKKqQ6wcPF1TXPk4IjJGWrJgrJBv90kvheNY0vRCXuVeNWP595KA EbyHfVfUddUWPVPA7jxuGp87QRaVsVOzJsNWxSRFHTpH7Zzrl6NGvq3NfLXDNFfTvQ2q3q xteB7xyS+I7BECAKC0yb8yvASuWDiCplyD0xc6QY6eJ25zYY3zhz9FsZ6o78ccueIqPhe4 H1Za14ITmnD8d6sRtb5QhPcGgEl1zQTsV/gkvCELnqFE/QU15e1NKsXFtBqDdg== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1632937841; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=ihabLU62++vn/RZ2fu/o93cNDc1/sa143I1FtunlRRYBdrTyoXnfGbHkpjecFCsFu62/+0 zfMMceoaVoAGchGFisE5NRvJDySfIMeiv3Soxxf1AsEvEVZf8pd++DlNpAkjNHA1NglvEH zCZwovqThtHs0ocedbwLh7elA0B+wrzkRgcTMNDCTO+vIlHmqEJshEqWIh7lXaJ8lAq0qE 1Cb3aIfaalqlrbL9oc/Otqq27XdkghP61gBrnHyEebWpU9tgoZpgBjtvGilrH8UNAMt3WE EMFmsnrM4bkaQ9Mlb03VNy2u+/ICBaG+8kEnrR26cQO56siQ1h1qPmswe6JMTA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b="GIa+Mex/"; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=gmail.com (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -1.30 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b="GIa+Mex/"; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=gmail.com (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 7C53F8D20 X-Spam-Score: -1.30 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: u177U0C/Zqx7 Hi, On Wed, 29 Sept 2021 at 16:36, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote: > > Perhaps I am wrong about option (2) -- my claim is that > > computed-origin-method is *always* used with a promise so it is for > > sure an half-baked guess but enough; and it avoids to hard code the > > modules from where the packages come from. Therefore, option (2) > > does not improve, IMHO. > > The probability of having a promise when using computed-origin-method > is 100%. What is the probability of having computed-origin-method when > you see a promise? The answer is: we don't know. We can see from the You mean, what is the probability of having a computed-origin-method when the origin-uri is a promise? We do not know, but pragmatically, for now 100%. :-) Option (2) is: ___ (or (eq? method (@@ (gnu packages gnuzilla) computed-origin-method)) _______ (eq? method (@@ (gnu packages linux) computed-origin-method))) then I ask you similarly: what is the probability of having packages using computed-origin-method in these 2 modules only? We do not know, but pragmatically, for now 100%. :-) The hypothetical probabilities to evaluate are: - what would be the probability that a new package having a promise as origin-uri is not indeed a package with a computed-origin-method? vs - what would be the probability that a new package using computed-origin-method is not part of either (gnu packages gnuzilla) or (gnu packages linux)? Anyway! Well, I am not convinced that it is worth to tackle these hypothetical issues. :-) That's why the option (3): (eq? method (@@ (guix packages) computed-origin-method)) which means refactorize*. It is somehow the two worlds: check i.e., safer, no modules hard-coded and keep private the time to have The Right Plan for this computed-origin-method. *refactorize: I think (guix packages) is better because it defines '' and other tooling friends. Because 'computed-origin-method' is somehow a temporary tool about origin, i.e., a mechanism to define packages, it makes sense to me to put it there. However, (gnu packages) is about tools to deal with packages, not to define them; although one could argue that 'search-patch' is there is used to define package. For what my rationale behind the choice of (guix packages) is worth. And indeed, I have only half-mentioned this rationale. As I said, generating this sources.json file by the website is clunky. Somehow, it is a quick hack to have something up waiting The Right Way; the long-term generations should be done through the Data Service, as it had been already discussed but not yet implemented. Help welcome. :-) > > About update guix package [2/2], it has to be done, IIUC. The file > > sources.json contains what the package guix provides, not what the > > current Guix has. The website -- built using the Guile tool haunt -- > > uses Guix as a Guile library. Maybe I miss something. > > What I was trying to say was that you wouldn't need to rebuild the guix > package before applying the 50515 changes, which this one seems to > require. Again, I'm not 100% sure that's the case, but IIUC (gnu > packages) is its own realm in this regard. Hum, maybe there is a misunderstanding here. On one hand 50620 applies to the guix.git repo and on the other hand 50515 applies to guix-artwork.git repo. To have the sources of linux-libre and icecat reported in sources.json and thus to get a chance to have them archived by SWH, we need: a- if computed-origin-method is factorized then update the guix package (Guix as a library) else do nothing; patch applied to guix.git b- tweak how sources.json is built; patch applied to guix-artwork.git Well, the aim of 50620 is to deal with a) whereas the aim of 50515 is to deal with b). Note that 50515 requires a v2 if computed-origin-method is factorized. Maybe I miss something. From my understanding, all the modules are part of Guix as a library. Therefore, it does not depends on where we refactorize. To be honest, I thought that this tiny improvement of the SWH coverage would have been much more easier and that that trivial task would not have taken more than 15 days with lengthy discussions. :-) > I do have some opinions on that, but I'll type them out in response to > Ludo, so as to not repeat myself too often. Thanks. I will comment overthere or maybe raise the discussion to guix-devel. All the best, simon