From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id KAnxF6+OHmCUKgAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 06 Feb 2021 12:42:23 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id YObiEq+OHmCsKwAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 06 Feb 2021 12:42:23 +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 E2151940105 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 12:42:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:39878 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l8Mur-0007tb-Ju for larch@yhetil.org; Sat, 06 Feb 2021 07:42:21 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55034) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l8MuX-0007oY-VQ for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Feb 2021 07:42:05 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:33854) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l8MuX-0004mz-Oc for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Feb 2021 07:42:01 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l8MuX-00085S-N8 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Feb 2021 07:42:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#46215] [PATCH] Add yadm Resent-From: Leo Prikler Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2021 12:42:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 46215 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice Cc: 46215@debbugs.gnu.org, Ellis =?UTF-8?Q?Keny=C5=91?= Received: via spool by 46215-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B46215.161261530431060 (code B ref 46215); Sat, 06 Feb 2021 12:42:01 +0000 Received: (at 46215) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Feb 2021 12:41:44 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45400 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l8MuC-00084p-8y for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 06 Feb 2021 07:41:44 -0500 Received: from mailrelay.tugraz.at ([129.27.2.202]:51042) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l8Mu5-00084Y-Up for 46215@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 06 Feb 2021 07:41:38 -0500 Received: from nijino.local (217-149-173-242.nat.highway.telekom.at [217.149.173.242]) by mailrelay.tugraz.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DXsNV11vsz1LLyX; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 13:41:29 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mailrelay.tugraz.at 4DXsNV11vsz1LLyX DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tugraz.at; s=mailrelay; t=1612615290; bh=+Dj1wwzP6jsOuaNTHLIyUKTyiifvIHRHIZwpHndrCms=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Ik0m/Ks9UZRK238KQ0+4U965TpGzfVPOlivFz38UzGtOTSKxPTtJ7nynovwViHgNz 15yusDq4WRJslrfTo8wkTlBoIQzhQnhCxg0Y5tiWRGD5ZCexsC0KGwV13e1nBA/a1f dB9YU6foKszAXzGIJfV/MVMKm4SU8jJMmlX2XiE0= Message-ID: From: Leo Prikler Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2021 13:41:29 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87y2g1wha4.fsf@nckx> References: <20210131164721.8792-1-me@elken.dev> <84ab5054792abeb5e9b85d21229cd7182204d817.camel@student.tugraz.at> <87czxkc0yv.fsf@elken.dev> <0ff6a0c2cc9a2f65cd51c1eeb9e6a33aa4789766.camel@student.tugraz.at> <669deac8-ffa5-42ba-8741-3cae0b18220e@elken.dev> <38ed969df583e9254802fa7a4a80299ec5caddc4.camel@student.tugraz.at> <9efaa5895bc488ddd4fd8c456aa5c2fdf09cb4af.camel@student.tugraz.at> <87pn1dpkwr.fsf@elken.dev> <9b32a7b7-9664-4108-a66c-f3de42d10c68@elken.dev> <78f1ced9e2125994a806383fb1d985d256874a81.camel@student.tugraz.at> <87y2g1wha4.fsf@nckx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TUG-Backscatter-control: bt4lQm5Tva3SBgCuw0EnZw X-Spam-Scanner: SpamAssassin 3.003001 X-Spam-Score-relay: -1.9 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.74 on 129.27.10.116 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 X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -1.26 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=tugraz.at header.s=mailrelay header.b="Ik0m/Ks9"; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=student.tugraz.at (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: E2151940105 X-Spam-Score: -1.26 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn1.migadu.com X-TUID: NI/g7DtGt3so Tobias, Am Samstag, den 06.02.2021, 12:46 +0100 schrieb Tobias Geerinckx-Rice: > Leo, Ellis, > > Leo Prikler 写道： > > I'd like to say "use your best judgement", but you seem to be a > > little > > too fixated on having a minimal package description (and putting > > minimal effort into it). > > That's uncalled for. It's certainly not the impression I get. Apologies. To me it read like Ellis wanted to avoid making certain substitutions for no apparent reason. I understand, that there may at times be valid concerns w.r.t. having something as input, but rather than talk about specific concerns, we just went in circles over what "optional" means. > > For instance, when the package advertises encryption, while it > > is > > technically optional, shipping it without gpg would be a grave > > oversight! > > Well, that depends. My own rule of thumb for ‘foo supports > encryption!’ is: > > $ gpg > bash: gpg: command not found > $ foo --encrypt > error: whoopsie: BUG in do_foo()+0x4f44! > <16 lines of barftrace> > error: warning: error: No such file or directory. (-ERROR) > $ > > => Make gpg an input, and quick. > > $ gpg > bash: gpg: command not found > $ foo --encrypt > error: gpg not found, please install it. > $ > > => This is totally fine, users who want it know what to do next. Fair enough, but I'd still like to raise a point w.r.t. frequency. If most use cases were to somehow involve encryption, I still think it's better to have it in by default rather than not. Unlike Debian, we don't really have (and probably don't want) a "recommended packages" field in packages. Regards, Leo