Re: downloading a tarball

2017-03-25 Thread Hartmut Goebel 
Am 24.03.2017 um 23:10 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
> What about this (patch below)?

This is definitively an enhancement :-) Thanks! (I did not know,
newlines are usable in log-messages. Good to know.)

-- 
+++hartmut

| Hartmut Goebel|   |
| hart...@goebel-consult.de | www.goebel-consult.de |

Re: persistent reproducibility ?

2017-03-25 Thread zimoun 
Hi !


> concerning my initial question

Thanks Chris!
It is exactly the `guix pack' at source level that I was looking for.
I am playing around.

I have still issues when redirecting the `export', e.g., `guix archive
--export hello' works, but not `guix archive --export hello >
hello.nar'
raising: `guix archive: error: corrupt input while restoring archive
from #'
Well, it is another topic.


> concerning license relative stuff

I am on the same wavelength and I almost agree.
My worries seems edge cases and I am maybe applying an overstatement
typical from south french people ;-)


Thanks to Guix community to share their positive energy.


All the best,
-simon


On 24 March 2017 at 16:45, Ludovic Courtès  wrote:
> Hi!
>
> zimoun  skribis:
>
 One of the issues is that the Guix packages tree will never include
 some softwares, even if they are open source. Because the authors
 apply weird licences or non-GNU compliant licences, or simply because
 authors are not so motivated to push. Even if I totally agree with the
 paragraph about Proprietary Softwares in your cited paper, it is just
 a fact from my humble opinion.
>>>
>>> If you mean “open source” in the sense of “using a license that is
>>> certified by the Open Source Initiative” then that software is probably
>>> Free Software.  There is no such thing as GNU compliance in licenses.
>>
>> I mean "open source" any software publicly released with publicly
>> accessible source. It is large. ;-)
>
> “Open source” as defined by the OSI means more that just “accessible
> source”:
>
>   https://opensource.org/definition
>
> In effect it requires the 4 freedoms:
>
>   https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
>
> Now, it is true that there’s software out there with “accessible source”
> that is neither free software nor open source, especially on github.com
> since GitHub makes it easy to publish code without specifying a license.
>
>> My point is that a lot of softwares released in scientific world will
>> never reach such condition. It is sad and I think all people here are
>> trying to change by convincing the authors. But, it is a pragmatic
>> fact.
>
> I’m not sure.  Of course we’d have to be more specific than “a lot of”
> ;-), but I also see “a lot of” scientific software that is free; in
> fact, I haven’t seen much non-free scientific software produced in the
> CS research institutes here in France.
>
>>> We do however follow the GNU FDSG (Free System Distribution Guidelines),
>>> which may result in some software to be excluded or modified in rare
>>> cases.  (One example is “Shogun”, which we modify to remove included
>>> non-free software.)
>>
>> Yes, the GNU FDSG defines "free" (as in speech). And there is "open
>> source" softwares which are not included in this definition (for the
>> good, for the bad, I am not arguing).
>> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicenses
>> For example, some versions of Scilab (clone of Matlab) with a "weird"
>> license (CeCILL-2).
>
> The CeCILL licenses are all free software licenses, so CeCILL-licensed
> software is welcome in Guix!
>
> Thanks,
> Ludo’.

Re: downloading a tarball

2017-03-25 Thread Ben Woodcroft 

Hi,


On 25/03/17 18:47, Catonano wrote:
2017-03-24 15:33 GMT+01:00 Hartmut Goebel >:


Am 24.03.2017 um 14:14 schrieb Tobias Geerinckx-Rice:
>> > HTH - speaking from experience making the same mistake here..
> I suspect most people have. The message isn't as clear as it
could be.

Either way round the message is hard to read: squezzed between many
other message, no line-break and arguable wording. IMHO this should be
improved to empower more people.


I keep being unable to download this file

Now it downloads it but it can't decompress it - no such file

Here is my definition
http://paste.lisp.org/display/342342#1


Looks like a zipbomb, it unpacked for me using "(method 
url-fetch/zipbomb)" rather than "(method url-fetch)".


ben

Re: downloading a tarball

2017-03-25 Thread Catonano 
2017-03-24 15:33 GMT+01:00 Hartmut Goebel :

> Am 24.03.2017 um 14:14 schrieb Tobias Geerinckx-Rice:
> >> > HTH - speaking from experience making the same mistake here..
> > I suspect most people have. The message isn't as clear as it could be.
>
> Either way round the message is hard to read: squezzed between many
> other message, no line-break and arguable wording. IMHO this should be
> improved to empower more people.
>

I keep being unable to download this file

Now it downloads it but it can't decompress it - no such file

Here is my definition
http://paste.lisp.org/display/342342#1

thanks for any hint


>
> --
> +++hartmut
>
> | Hartmut Goebel|   |
> | hart...@goebel-consult.de | www.goebel-consult.de |
>
>
>