<dadinn>the poing about the init-instroot script, is I have added a new feature yesterday which allows automatically installing executable dependencies, whith an extensible way to configure it for multiple distros (not just Debian)
<dadinn>So I am thinking I will adapt it to Guix, Arch, and redhat... wherever a bootstrap installation method makes sense
<vagrantc>klys: don't see what the issue is... looks like you built successfully?
<klys>vagrantc, I have a couple pastes for you then
<vagrantc>klys: could you use the recommended paste.debian.net instead?
<vagrantc>i've been running lvm on debian machines for many years ... no daemons running here
<dadinn>As mentioned earlier I have these bootstrap scripts for Debian, and now I am trying to migrate them to Arch, and Guix... I have spent years on getting this installation process for LUKS, LVM, ZFS, UEFI, etc running spotless for Debian, so it might be relevant.
<NieDzejkob>dadinn: lvm2-static is for use in the initrd. the lvm2 package does provide the binaries. Do you have ~/.guix-profile/sbin in your path? Maybe you need to reload the profile? (run the commands that guix printed out or start a new login shell)
<brown121407>NieDzejkob: I need 0.3.5 because I want to package something that depends on exactly on that version. I would update our 0.3 but I don't want to risk to break other packages that may depend on 0.3.4. Is there any way to check if updating it would break other packages?
<PotentialUser-30>hello there! I've got an issue with the GNU Guix TUI installer, it returns to the beginning of the installer when I select either options manual, guided, or guided encrypted, at the partitioning phase, and I can't see any error log, nor find an error log, do you know how I can debug this issue? Thank you!
<NieDzejkob>brown121407: Ah, nice! I was mildly confused since usually these Rust packages show up as entire patchstacks ;) BTW, you might be interested in the improved importer in bug#38408
<apteryx>mbakke: hello! Is cherry picking a couple commits from core-updates back to master alright?
<NieDzejkob>apteryx: if they don't cause a rebuild themselves, I think the only concern is the merge
<alextee[m]>er, i'm trying to update zrythm but i just noticed we patch a file. i added a trademark policy that says altered versions need to change the name and logo. im not sure if this counts as an altered version
<alextee[m]>should i rename the package and mark this as deprecated or something?
<mbakke>apteryx: sure, as long as they con't cause a huge rebuild like NieDzejkob mentions (are there non-rebuilding commits on c-u?)
<nckx>It's still free software, but it's a pain to package and maintain, so we'll change the name so's not to be forced to ask upstream's permission for every patch, so fewer users will find & use it. Counterproductive at best.
<mbakke>apteryx: I like to use the '-x' flag when cherry-picking between branches to provide a hint in case it causes a merge conflict
<NieDzejkob>alextee[m]: what situation are you worried about, exactly, that you're trying to mitigate with this policy?
<alextee[m]>idunno, i mean this policy is even implied in some countries
<alextee[m]>anyway, i don't think i'll change it unless there's some magic legal speak that allows reasonable modificiations
<alextee[m]>im fine with changing the name/logo in a patch, it's still recognizable
<nckx>alextee[m]: Which ones? I'm not aware of *any* country where a reasonable effort to provide the original product (which is freely distributable) can be shut down through trademark law.
<nckx>And no, patching something it to work on $distro is not a meaningful modification.
<alextee[m]>US i think. if you sell something under the name and logo, you're the trademark owner. unless you add a license that can probably void the trademark like a CC license on the logo, then you can make other parties stop using it because its your t rademark
<alextee[m]>wordpress says something along the lines of "it's ok as long as you do it in a way to promote wordpress", but it still requires permission from what i understood
<NieDzejkob>that's the basics of how trademarks work. I don't think that's how it interacts with freely-licensed software, though. What's your source here?
<alextee[m]>anyway, does it matter? i don't think i'll change it. it looks reasonable to me and many others i asked.
<nckx>alextee[m]: I won't comment on Wordpress since I'm not familiar with it. But you're mistaken if you think your trademark claim means you own the brand or can prohibit a patched version of your software to use the name ZRythm. You can't.
<nckx>You can do so if the patched version is detrimental to your brand; not merely because it is patched.
<NieDzejkob>If there were no negative consequences in adopting the trademark policy, I'd probably do so myself for my software. But there *are* negative consequences: distros have to do extra work to provide your software, and won't give you any advertising, since users will be getting your software under a different trademark. In this situation, having this policy to prevent the situation of "idunno" is at best irrational.
<alextee[m]>then i can just update the package and it should be fine. i asked a debian packager and they told me that it would be ok if they patched it after fetching the original source or something like that
<alextee[m]>im not 100% clear on what counts as an altered version and i dont want to define it
<alextee[m]>that's why im asking about what i should do the package :P
<NieDzejkob>alextee[m]: I don't think you need to encode what you want into legalese. You could just say that "changes adjusting Zrythm to specific environments and/or operating systems are allowed", for example
<alextee[m]>NieDzejkob: hmm that doesn't sound bad. i'm trying to think if that statement can be abused somehow (put yourself in the feet of some company that wants to exploit a project for profit)
<alextee[m]>maybe add a "however any other changes including but not limited to functionalities, messages presented to users and hyperlinks are not allowed"
<roptat>alextee[m], also if you have a channel but don't want to guix pull it, you can use -L /path/to/channel/checkout
<alextee[m]>yeah that's what i use mostly when testing packages
<nckx>alextee[m]: Have you talked to any qualified legal experts also familiar with Free software? It's a pretty unusual niche (you own some part of the name, but can't influence supply of the underlying product).
<nckx>Just out of curiosity, because I find this interesting, nothing more.
<alextee[m]>nckx: i would but i dont really have the funds to
<alextee[m]>and last time i asked email@example.com they said i had to pay a large amount
<alextee[m]>which suggest not to do that and use a trademark policy instead
<alextee[m]>this part: Allowing anyone to reuse or modify your logo or trademark as a matter of copyright could result in your inability to limit use of your logo or trademark selectively to accomplish those purposes. Applying a CC license to your trademarks and logos could even result in a loss of your trademark rights altogether.
<blackbeard[m]>alextee: hi! Trademarks are a very specific area, basically the law is designed to punish you if you use them.
<alextee[m]>blackbeard: yeah, it looks like giving explicit permission for specific things is the only way to go about it, otherwise you risk trademarks becoming diluted
<nckx>Even then, you're expected to actively defend the trademark. Don't underestimate that. It can be a full-time job (some free-software/open-source maintainer said it basically was, for them, but I regret to say I forgot whom).
<blackbeard[m]>Because you may have a trademark for a specific region and activity
<blackbeard[m]>And I may have a similar trademark for a region that you are not registered in
<alextee[m]><nckx "Even then, you're expected to ac"> i want to make zrythm my full time job anyway and spend many years on it (one of the reasons i want a registered trademark) so i'm prepared for that
<nckx>But I agree with blackbeard[m]: this is a very specific legal area, much more than copyright, which is relatively uniform. And we know how simple the latter is… 🙂
<nckx>blackbeard[m]: Does your thesis explore their perspective by any chance?
<lispmacs>i was trying to figuring out if I could package Arduino IDE or not. I don't know anything about ant but probably could figure it out. However, in the README it says that the build processes downloads and compiles associated arduino libraries
<nckx>I find them fascinating if incomprehensible.
<lispmacs>will that somehow conflict the guix package or security model?
<NieDzejkob>lispmacs: you'll have to configure/patch the build process to use sources provided by guix
<lispmacs>NieDzejkob: I'm guess that is the reason nobody else has packaged it yet
<NieDzejkob>man, why must the apostrophe be so close to the enter key :<
<nckx>Yeah, civodul's just trolling our muscle memory at this point.
<LeonLainDelysid>I have installed Guix on a raspberrypi but its processor is too slow to build the sources itself. I was told before that there is an option to tell guix to ask another more powerful machine on the network to run the build jobs itself. Does anyone know how I can do that?
<pkill9>I want to add the share directory for inputs that need to be propagated + installed into the main profile so that things like dbus find it, since they typically only search for the share directories specified when the user is logged in