[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: best practise between git-fetch vs url-fetch?

From: Jack Hill
Subject: Re: best practise between git-fetch vs url-fetch?
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 00:54:25 -0400 (EDT)
User-agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)

On Sun, 24 May 2020, Ludovic Courtès wrote:


Another improvement we could make here is improving the message about
Software Heritage in guix lint. Most of the other messages it emits
are things that the author of a package should consider improving. If
the Software Heritage message is less actionable, let's make that
clearer so that people don't think there is a problem with their
package definition.

What message would you suggest?

How about expanding section 7.7 "Invoking Guix Lint" in the manual to include a paragraph of advice in the explanation for each checker. For example, the advice could be could be "change the source to use git-fetch" for "source-unstable-tarball", "exercise judgment on the long-term availability of software sources. We think that code hosted on the GNU ftp servers will be around for a long time, but code on people's personal websites may not be. The greater the risk of the software disappearing, the more important is is to use git-fetch in sources so we can trigger archiving at Software Heritage" for "archival", and "double check whether these inputs really should be native [link to appropriate section of the manual]. If they really need to be, leave a comment in the code briefly explaining why to help future contributors" for "inputs-should-be-native".

Obviously, those aren't fit to be included in the manual as is, but hopefully they give a good idea of what I was thinking. guix lint could remind people to check the manual for advice when it detects lint.

That said, I am open to other options, including that this isn't a problem that we need to solve.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]