Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Recognizing the GNU system as a free distro

[Ludovic Courtès]

address@hidden (Karl Berry) skribis:

>     So, do we want ‘guix build --source’ to return the already-patched,
>     FSDG-compliant source?
>
> It should return exactly the sources which actually got built -- which I
> gather, though I'm not sure, is not necessarily the same as "unmodified
> upstream"?  Or rather, the most natural way for people to get sources
> (e.g., using the same "channel" as the binaries they got) should result
> in them getting the sources that got built to make those binaries.

I agree that the current behavior of ‘guix build --source’ is
unsatisfying.

That it currently returns the unmodified upstream tarball is more a
consequence of how things are implemented: during the build process,
after the tarball is unpacked, a ‘patch’ phase is run (this is where
distro-specific, fixes, and freedom-related changes are made.)

‘guix build --source’ should be changed to return the result of applying
that ‘patch’ phase to the upstream tarball.  WDYT?

> That's the whole requirement of distributing the binaries under the GPL,
> after all.  Not related to FSDG specifically.  I know you know this, so
> I'm rather puzzled by what's going on.

As I explained during my GHM talk, Guix furthers the spirit of the GPL
in that it provides the /complete/ build recipe that led to the
binary–“complete” means that it includes build scripts, patches,
compilers, libraries, etc., recursively.

When users do ‘guix package --list-available’, they are given the file
name of the recipe, which allows them to check precisely how things are
patched and built.

So I think the issue is really about how things are presented to the
user.  Part of the issue probably comes from the fact that Guix works
differently than binary-only distros.

Thanks for your feedback!

Ludo’.