<efraim>in this situation you mean that we provide the source and the binary
<efraim>if you have binary substitutes set up and you download the binary we should have the source. but if for some reason we don't have the source (ie low disk space) then it'll fall back to downloading from upstream
<jmarciano>I only mean that as such, distributing GPL2 packages is not in conformance. Other licenses I did not check
<efraim>if you don't have subsitutes set up then guix provides neither the source nor the binaries
<df_>I just ran guix build --source hello and it downloaded the source from hydra
<jmarciano>yes, I see "by construction", I am sure that people can construct the source. Only that such construction is now allowed for certain license like GPL 2, it has to be accompanied with the complete corresponding source code"
<jmarciano>well sure, but then you have to really understand section 1. as section 3. (substitute) ask for section 1 "conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program"
<jmarciano>in this example, I got substitute, but not the copy of the license. Reference in the man page is not a copy of the license.
<jmarciano>lfam: when patches modify the original source code, I get substitute, but where is then the corresponding source code to accompany the substitute in accordance with GPL 2? I hope you understand this and you will read GPL 2. Of course I do understand that I can "construct" - very nice, but it is not in conformance to license.
<lfam>I think you should send a message to the mailing list
<jmarciano>actually I hoped this was solved, I was rather questioning
<rekado>jmarciano: the patch sources are part of Guix.
<rekado>when you use "guix build -S" you get a tarball with the patches already applied
<jmarciano>I am not asking for myself. I know where can I get sources, or that I can construct them. That is however "description" how to ge corresponding source on his own computer. It is not "accompany with the corresponding source". So it violates GPL2
<jmarciano>you gave me example of derivation. I did not check the example. I assumed it is true. So if derivation is modified, patched source code, or original source code, it shall accompany the binary.
<sneek>rain1, efraim says: you can access freenode through tor at irc://frxleqtzgvwkv7oz.onion
<jmarciano>if I remove nvi patches, to other place, guix build --source fails with: guix build: error: nvi-assume-preserve-path.patch: patch not found -- so I can still assume that the modified sources are not distributed and not accompanied with the object/executable form distributed by hydra
<jmarciano>so that experiment with patch removal is not correct, but on the other hand, I could wget the package and compare to the one that I get with --source, so they are not the same -- source code is not accompanying the object code.
<jmarciano>Source code can be built, created, but that is not a distribution.
<ng0>version needs something appended i think. like (version "0.0.6.svn$revision"
<ng0>that's all i see. for svn and hash, i would just try and see if using git to interact with svn works, like clone it through git svn (of course onlsy the revision you want (entire project gnunet svn is 14 years of code for example, took me 1 day I think) and then delete .git/
<htgoebel>civodul: Thanks so long :-). I'm going back to my main job now.
<ng0>suitsmeveryfine: haven't looked at the paste yet, but don't run the commands if you don't know if your way to work is equal to mine. it might work, but it works for me. currently I can't run my system from git checkout.
<civodul>bah, my emacs gets stuck in x_get_foreign_selection for several seconds when i try to paste stuff
<ng0>suitsmeveryfine: there might be a problem with the package. i'll look at it
<quiliro>the other times i tried to install guixsd with "guix system init /mnt/etc/desktop.scm /mnt" but it didn't work...i did not have time to stay where there is internet so i didn't even copy the error even to
<quiliro>and i thought the download would be recorded to the disk
<quiliro>is there a way i can make an offline installation?
<davexunit>Jookia: are you including other sdl packages as inputs or just the union?
<ng0>definitive a chapter for advanced knowledge/time: write good system services.
<rain1>all over the internet? we could collect it all into one location
<ng0>i try to revise come next december and see what I learned and where I made notes, where beginners problems are, but that would be from the perspective of someone not completely new to the syntax and definitely not new to packaging in general. a beginners guide in our sense would have to pick up people whee they are, giving also the option to pick them up at 0
<df_>I have found it quite hard to grok various guixy concepts, but not particularly to do with guile/scheme
<rain1>it's good if everyone takes notes on what they learn and merge it into a document
<Jookia>'guix environment --ad-hoc odamex email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org' would allow for playing older versions online however there's the caveat that you can't really select which version with any of the GUIs i've tried
<rekado>unless we used a functional reactive programming framework.
<bavier>civodul: that's what I was thinking too, yes
<ng0>i have many fonts from kreative korp on my drive. I am pretty sure we can't distribute the ones which have their "personal use license" (I will check that again), but the ones covered by their "free use license" should be okay to distribute: http://www.kreativekorp.com/software/fonts/FreeLicense.txt , there's even one under a familar license (open font license) on
<ng0>and even if you will stop it, somebody will do it. like some people might not see why some nonfree software is not available, they will package it and it will be available to people outside of the master
<Jookia>I didn't mean to stir up trouble with that statement- from what I understand in the Doom engines there's only a few 'big' ones that have distinguishing features
<bavier>concern over efficient use of volunteer efforts, which can be self-defeating
<efraim>the only real argument I could see against inclusion would be against spending compile time on hydra
<davexunit>Jookia: you're not stirring up trouble, but you triggered a feeling I've had the past few days.
<davexunit>which is unrelated to your particular doom packaging stuff. :)
<Jookia>It's definitely not worth saying that something's useful or not, though I think there needs to be explicit packaging criteria, even if it's just 'if it's of use to someone, it can be added and might be removed if not maintained'
<civodul>yes, jgay's analysis was very thoughtful and valuable
<efraim>I'm reading the part i'm substituting out more closely, the arguments get left behind if there's no valgrind and they cause libtool to fail
<efraim>we don't actually use valgrind for that much
<jmarciano>ng0: I have written what I have written. I am respecting everyone here, so please don't be disrespectful and call me "people like jm". I was pointing out to GPL violations such as "GPL license missing" in the object package. That is very valid argument. People like me are people who know what GPL means for future.
<ng0>i only said "like jm" because i did not want your attention through highlighting your name
<jmarciano>I am fine, I hope you are fine too, if you speak on public channel you get public attention.
<jmarciano>I am somebody who likes 4 freedoms, that is all. I value the principles of copyleft. Actually, I got it in a dream yesterday, woke up, checked it, could not find it, so I wish first to be wrong. I don't like this kind of teaching.
<lfam>jmarciano: This was very rude and I would also call it inaccurate: "it seems it was by design forgotten to comply to the GPL 2 license."
<Jookia>it's very hard to comply with the GPL so violations are often unintentional
<lfam>Of the packaging systems I have used, Guix (and Nix) are the best at providing the corresponding source of a given binary.
<jmarciano>I have done my first distribution back in 2003. I have provided to other people full source code. It was not so hard. 3 diskettes and few diskettes of source code.
<lfam>I think you should not start by accusing people of intentional wrongdoing
<jmarciano>There must be function that injects the corresponding license into the object package.
<lfam>I do think we should resolve this issue, whether it is a miscommunication or a real problem.
<jmarciano>it should be easy for certain licenses that have to be distributed with binary object code, to provide a function that injects the appropriate license or copies it into the binary package (substitute)
<Jookia>not sure how thats related to their location
<jmarciano>as there is by my understanding discussion of free software distributions
<jmarciano>and it is matter of design, not only a bug in single package, so far I am yet to find a package where there is a license inside
<Jookia>some more open questions: does video game art require license information to be placed on the images/models? how do we go about giving source code to serverside addons in a way that complies with the GPL?
<davexunit>jmarciano: can you please file a bug report that there *may* be a problem here, so we can keep track of it and look into it? this might be a matter than ludovic will sort out with the help of other GNU people.
<jmarciano>he knows about it, no need to be bureaucrat on my side
<ng0>jmarciano: do I understand you right that you think every software which passes the way from external build farm to system running guix should include a physical copy of the licenses in the file or attached rather than having the collected licenses linked?
<davexunit>jmarciano: there, right there, do you see why people get a negative impression?
<Jookia>actually on topic: should patched software link to the guix source code as corresponding source?
<davexunit>you will write an essay to gnu-linux-libre, but you won't put a bug in our bug tracker.
<jmarciano>ng0: if there is package on a server (substitute), and if licenses requires that license is distributed with object or executable code, and if license is not there, question is why and how it has to be remedied.
<davexunit>we're a distribution commited to the GNU FSDG, please assume good faith.
<jmarciano>davexunit: sure, if I don't assume, I would not be talking here at all.
<davexunit>even if we know about an issue, we need a way to manage issues, and that's what the bug tracker is for.
<kyamashita> thunar-volman: Unsupported USB device type "usb".
<jackdaniel>erm, anyone is proficient in guix (package manager) and wants to have a presentation on pkgsrc conf in krakow about it? (1st june) (sorry for multipost if someone sits on #scheme and #guile too, my bad)
<Jookia>kyamashita: hmm, can't say i've seen that error before
<Jookia>kyamashita: I want to be able to do "guix environment --ad-hoc freepats timidity++ freedoom prboom+" and have freedoom load up on my machine ithout configuring WAD paths or MIDI soundfont paths
<Jookia>unfortunately it means patching to add search paths and configuration generators i think, though i don't know if profiles can generate config files?
<paroneayea>things still run, though the guix command does not. Oh well.
<lfam>paroneayea: The video is all scrambled. I can't see anything. It's similar to what I'd see when I tried to watch cable channels I wasn't paying for when I was a kid (not sure if that technology still exists)
<lfam>I guess I should look into how libreboot configures its grub. I'm sure it's a video setting problem. The resolution is configured very low when the booting text shows after the grub menu times out. It only gets set sensibly once the kernel starts its framebuffer
<df_>in case this didn't get answered (and sorry to dredge it up again): every debian package ships with a copyright file that explains the details of the licensing - generally one of more copyright headers that refer the user to the text of the licenses in /usr/share/common-licenses/
<df_>which gets installed in /usr/share/doc/libmad0/
<jmd>What is guix environment supposed to be useful for?
<rekado>for the record: I sent an email to rain1 re CoC complaint.
<df_>efraim: me too, and I'm really disappointed in the collective amount of time that has been wasted since
<kyamashita>The purpose of guix environment is to assist hackers in creating reproducible development environments without polluting their package profile. The guix environment tool takes one or more packages, builds all of their inputs, and creates a shell environment to use them.
<kyamashita>So you can develop for certain packages w/o having to constantly install and remove stuff to keep a clean environment.
<efraim>it's also good to run a program as a "one off" without installing it, like 'guix environment --ad-hoc abcde -- abcde' will add abcde to your path, run abcde, and then exit the environment
<efraim>also `guix environment guix -- make` for the git repo
<lfam>And that is important in a month, when you need to run the garbage collector ;) Otherwise, all your in-progress packages that are in the history of your profiles will not be garbage collected unless you remove each offending profile, which is tedious
<davexunit>but yeah, IIRC building with fluidsynth may have some issues to solve.
<davexunit>make sure that sdl2 variants also build, since they inherit from the sdl 1.x versions
<Jookia>I want soundfonts to be available based on packages in a profile so I'm going to probably be patching timidity stuff and have a profile create a config, and do something like that for fluidsynth
<rekado>Jookia: sounds good! For timidity I only used freepats because I couldn't find the original sources for the soundfonts I used.
<efraim>starting the X server didn't help with abiword's tests
<Jookia>Maybe soundfont packages should generate a config file that the profile uses and warns of collisions, meaning one soundfont per profile
<Jookia>davexunit: Do you think having a 'one soundfont per profile' rule to avoid doing too much application patching would be a good idea? The limitation here is that you'd have to make a new package to combine soundfonts (which would require soundfont knowledge anyway, dunno if it could be automated)
<efraim>oh, I saw in debian's repos that there's a C compiler targeting intel cpus from the 16/32 bit days
<davexunit>Jookia: not sure, sounds like something that shouldn't so limited.
<davexunit>or something that we shouldn't have to handle specially at all
<davexunit>I don't know what the techinical limitations are with sound fonts
<davexunit>that should build the latest version of guix from source
<davexunit>quiliro: 0.8.3 is very old and we no longer provide binaries for that release, so that's why you see guix trying to download source code from irssi.org. it is trying to build everything from source.
<quiliro>how long will it take to reinstall everything with 0.10?