[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#26302: [website] translations
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
bug#26302: [website] translations |
Date: |
Wed, 06 Nov 2019 15:56:48 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) |
Hi,
"pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <address@hidden> skribis:
> From a5d9180d960d244053bea0d59d6092060fe4c6dd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Florian Pelz <address@hidden>
> Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 12:08:54 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH 01/13] doc: Explain more licensing aspects of the '--source'
> build option.
>
> * doc/guix.texi (Additional Build Options): Explain more.
> ---
> doc/guix.texi | 7 +++++++
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/doc/guix.texi b/doc/guix.texi
> index da2423b422..d8886fa494 100644
> --- a/doc/guix.texi
> +++ b/doc/guix.texi
> @@ -8328,6 +8328,13 @@ 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, dynamically linked dependencies, or any other
> +dependencies. When distributing complete corresponding sources for
> +license compliance, you may want to play it safe and use the following
> +@code{--sources} option instead.
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’.