[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: Ludovic Courtès
Subject: Re: best practise between git-fetch vs url-fetch?
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 23:17:02 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux)


Jack Hill <address@hidden> skribis:

> 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".

Regarding the ‘archival’ checker, the manual explains what’s at stake
and what it does:

I feel like there’s little room for improvement here.


reply via email to

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