On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 03:56:48PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> I don’t feel strongly about it, but to me, this is a discussion and thus
> not quite in line with the style of this section as a reference of ‘guix
> build’ options.
>
> As far as the discussion goes :-), I’d argue that the Corresponding
> Source in the spirit of the GPL is the derivation rather than what
> ‘--sources’ returns, since the Corresponding Source should include
> “build scripts”. I would argue that only functional package managers
> are able to support such a strong notion of Corresponding Source.
>
> Long story short: the discussion is not clear-cut and I’m not sure it
> belongs here. :-)
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Ludo’.
Well said. You convinced me not to make a recommendation. Thank you.
I still was surprised about `guix build -S` so I attach a new
proposal.
Regards,
Florian
>From c9f7b2739392e0d8cf2afa6b2179b2e138c49bc7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Florian Pelz <pelzflor...@pelzflorian.de>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 19:28:57 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] doc: Add clarification on the '--source' build option.
Emphasize that what the '--source' build option downloads is insufficient for
reproducing the packages.
* doc/guix.texi (Additional Build Options): Explain more.
---
doc/guix.texi | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/doc/guix.texi b/doc/guix.texi
index 30706d9ddd..58b8e41ab4 100644
--- a/doc/guix.texi
+++ b/doc/guix.texi
@@ -8336,6 +8336,11 @@ The returned source tarball is the result of applying
any patches and
code snippets specified in the package @code{origin} (@pxref{Defining
Packages}).
+Note that @command{guix build -S} compiles the sources only of the
+specified packages. They do not include the sources of statically
+linked dependencies and by themselves are insufficient for reproducing
+the packages.
+
@item --sources
Fetch and return the source of @var{package-or-derivation} and all their
dependencies, recursively. This is a handy way to obtain a local copy
--
2.23.0
