Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Recognizing the GNU system as a free distro
ôòøguix build --sourceôòù should be changed to return the result of applying that ôòøpatchôòù phase to the upstream tarball. WDYT? Sounds right. in that it provides the /complete/ build recipe that led to the binaryôòóôòücompleteôòý means that it includes build scripts, patches, compilers, libraries, etc., recursively. Very nice. Thanks, k
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Recognizing the GNU system as a free distro
Ludovic Courtès said: > Yes, I understand this, but my question was more about how this occurs > technically. > > My understanding is that Debian-based distros provide the unmodified > upstream source, with a debian/patches tree containing patches they > apply. Do I get it right? Ah, I see. In the case of, say, the Linux kernel it's not really possible to provide the unmodified source code because that would mean Trisquel would be distributing that non-free software. So, their orig.tar.gz isn't the unmodified upstream source but rather the deblobbed version.
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Recognizing the GNU system as a free distro
Op Sat, 14 Sep 2013 15:01:13 +0200 schreef l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès): > My understanding is that Debian-based distros provide the unmodified > upstream source, with a debian/patches tree containing patches they > apply. Do I get it right? For gNewSense we do as follows. If the software recommends non-free software then 'apt-get source' will give you the unmodified upstream source + a debian/patches tree with a fix to remove the reference. If the upstream source contains blobs or non-free code then 'apt-get source' will give you the upstream source without the troublesome bits (+ a debian/patches tree if there are also issues like the former).
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Recognizing the GNU system as a free distro
"Jason Self" skribis: > Ludovic Courtès asked: >> But, what does "source code" mean here? Does it mean the source that's >> made available using the distro tools, such as 'apt-get source'? > > That's my understanding of it. OK. Again, I’d like to stress that Guix goes way further than this: any user can check the whole dependency chain, build scripts, and patches used to build a package. They can run build recipes locally, and assert that the binary they obtain matches the one distributed by hydra.gnu.org–as opposed to having to trust hydra.gnu.org. >> What kind of changes are these, typically? Are these changes to debian/ >> files (such as adding new patches), or are these changes outside of the >> debian/ directory? > > They run the gamut: [...] Yes, I understand this, but my question was more about how this occurs technically. My understanding is that Debian-based distros provide the unmodified upstream source, with a debian/patches tree containing patches they apply. Do I get it right? Thanks! Ludo’.
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Recognizing the GNU system as a free distro
k...@freefriends.org (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’.
