<jgrant>If this is that active of a concern, then why don't we change the GPL to something else on this metric? <jgrant>GSD is a GNU project, and as such, will be directly under the naming scheme of "GNU Whatever". "GNU GSD", when speicifed that the G in GSD (which it is clearly stated in documentation now), that said G is Guix, I don't get the real worry besides being overly cautious for the sake of being overly cautious. <jgrant>And ... chanspam again. Sorry folks, wasn't expecting that news form grasshopprWhoppr and I hope Ludo doesn't act on it and keeps the current incarnation of the name "GSD". <jgrant>This is just so wearing; We finally had a name most everyone in the community accepted as passable -- then you have someone who has the power to say no (outside of said community) and who's opinion we kinda have to respect saying no, not good enough. About a week ago, I wasn't even frustrated and was trying to send warm sentiments to Ludo. Now, I'm aprox there. <grasshopprWhoppr>Is BSD some kind of frenemy: free software that's not protected with a copyleft? <jgrant>BSD is Free-Software, not Copyleft. Permissive Free-Software. <jgrant>grasshopprWhoppr: No, I doubt very much the BSD camp would care. They'd see us as not trying to be Unix-like that much, when they're trying to be as "unix-like" as possible (for the most part). <jgrant>BSD and GSD are different philosophies, and as such go about things differently, I don't think there's much hostility that could possibly be there. Especially if we make it clear we weren't trying to be a BSD. I think that's obvious in it's own right, but having some tagline such as I've been parroting "GNU is not Unix. GSD is really not BSD" I think makes the intentions clear. <jgrant>I don't know, I'm just fairly peeved at this point. <jgrant>Yeah, I must be doing something wrong. Vm looks a lot more ideal of a way to do devel in, than say setting up a vm to work with disk image -- but, the store is still only readonly ... so, I can't do anything actual devel. <rekado>jgrant: the email by rms linked above by grasshopprWhoppr was sent *before* Ludo announced the new new name as GNU GSD. <rekado>sneek: later tell civodul I see that the discussion on gnu-system-discuss lives on. Maybe it would be a good idea for you to state there that the naming decision has been made and the discussion no longer needs to continue. *DusXMT will still probably call it Guixotic until a concrete notice is made (eg. in the docs) <DusXMT>rekado: okay, that's a concrete enough notice for me, GNU GSD it is then :) <rekado>I'm planning to install GSD on my netbook which currently runs Fedora. I want to be able to boot either system for the time being. Are there instructions on how to configure GRUB to find the GSD kernel? <rekado>I want to share the /gnu/store directory between GSD and Fedora and reduce stuff installed through yum. <rekado>I'd appreciate any advice on how to do this with the least effort :) <rekado>I want to package a few audio tools (e.g. Ardour, the LV2 plugin framework, etc); is it okay to place this in a new module file gnu/packages/audio.scm? <alezost>(assuming that "guix" is the label of the volume where the system is installed) <mark_weaver>rekado: there's no reasonable way to find the GSD kernel from anything other than the grub.cfg generated by Guix itself. so my recommendation would be to use the 'configfile' command in grub to load GSD's grub.cfg (which is in /boot/grub/grub.cfg) <mark_weaver>the problem is that the kernel lives in /gnu/store, as does the initrd, and you also have to pass some other kernel command-line options to specify which system to boot (also in /gnu/store) and some other things. <mark_weaver>just look in GSD's /boot/grub/grub.cfg to see what the menu entries look like. <mark_weaver>(in theory you could copy one of those into another grub.cfg, but then it would become stale the next time you run 'guix system reconfigure') <mark_weaver>rekado: audio.scm sounds like a reasonable place for Ardour and LV2. <mark_weaver>rekado, alezost: well, I stand corrected. alezost's method looks good to me also. <fchmmr>it should be easier to boot guix with this version, several changes have been made (it's been talked about in this channel recently). <fchmmr>specifically, this is relevant to guix: <mark_weaver>thanks for working with us to make things work better for Guix users. it is a great help! <fchmmr>thank jxself for making me aware of the issues you were all having. <fchmmr>That is what prompted me to come to this channel to offer assistance. <mark_weaver>fchmmr: minor nit: instead of "Guix GNU/Linux", we call it the "Guix System Distribution". <fchmmr>ok. but it has GNU and Linux in it? <fchmmr>I'll change that in git (it will be in the next release, whenever that is) <fchmmr>(you said GNU GSD - GNU Guix System Distribution, but it's a GNU/Linux distro. GNU Guix GNU/Linux). <mark_weaver>we don't feel compelled to mention Linux in the name of the distribution. most of the other distros don't mention GNU either. <mark_weaver>I'm not sure why the kernel always receives top billing everywhere. it's just one of many components in the system. <fchmmr>OK. I think Linus Torvalds is a pompous dim whit too, but I still think that his software deserves equal mention. It is an integral component of GNU/Linux, after all. <mark_weaver>so is glibc. should we call it Guix GNU/Glibc/linux-libre ? <fchmmr>Guix System Distribution is a good name though <davexunit>GNU Guix System Distribution GNU/Linux? The GNU/Linux part is completely redundant. <fchmmr>OK. I will respect the wishes of the Guix project and refer to it in libreboot documentation as GSD or Guix System Distribution <mark_weaver>and fwiw, we mention linux-libre prominently in many places, but there's not room in the name to fit every important component. Linux gets plenty of publicity, doesn't need more. <fchmmr>So, next stable release will say GSD, but git already does. <DusXMT>(note: GNU GSD would be even more ideal, as RMS doesn't like the abbreviation GSD...) <fchmmr>Well, a name is a name is a name. <fchmmr>was s/system/software discussed? <fchmmr>"System" is probably better than "Software", though. <fchmmr>Since, reading the docs, I get the impression that Guix is more "core" than most distros, containing really just the basics. <fchmmr>so "System" is more appropriate. <fchmmr>Naming isn't really that important to me. <jxself>Yes, the discussion of what to name it was way too long. <fchmmr>I didn't even come up with the name libreboot, jxself did <fchmmr>(originally, I was going to call it coreboot-libre, because I'm super-unimaginative) <mark_weaver>GNU GSD aims to contain everything that our users want that complies with the FSDG <fchmmr>so you are saying that it's a GNU GNU/Linux system. <jxself>Well, we have to operate within the confines of what RMS will approve. <fchmmr>You don't have to, you just choose to. <mark_weaver>fchmmr: I don't understand. GSD stands for "Guix System Distribution". So GNU GSD stands for "GNU Guix System Distribution" <fchmmr>(which is a good choice, IMO, since the FSF have really good ideals) <jxself>I think RMS would be unhappy if we decided to call it the GNU Operating System, as was originally suggested. <jxself>So yes, we do need to operate within those confines. :) <mark_weaver>RMS was concerned that people will think the 'G' in GSD stands for "GNU System Distribution" which sounds too canonical for his taste (and thus suggests that other FSDG-compliant distros are second-class citizens), so that's why I say GNU GSD to help avoid that. <fchmmr>I was actually subconsciously typing GNU System Distribution earlier and kept having to correct myself. <mark_weaver>I've had to correct many people who think that the 'G' in GPL stands for "GNU". <jxself>Perhaps that would be clearer if we started calling it the GGPL? <jxself>People called the FDL the GFDL so GGPL follows the same pattern. ;) <_`_>the name is still a problem huh <fchmmr>It's not really an issue, just something to laugh about. <fchmmr>For example, some people think that libreboot is a reboot library. <jgrant`>So, still wondering about this vm? Should I be able to interact with the store of the host-system or is the intent to have a readonly store thereof? ***jgrant_ is now known as xjgrant`
***xjgrant` is now known as xjgrant
<xjgrant>I would think this is something fixable, with ease, I just am too ignorant enough to figure it out. I'm afraid just to Chown it from said vm to the host system's store -- with the fear that it will screw all permissions and in turn, screw the whole install. <jgrant`>Brb, will be still on and lurking on my other machine though. o/ <xjgrant>rekado: Hey, don't know if you figured it out yet or not. But ... Ardour is probably fine with/for audio.scm. I don't know if it has a buttton of plugins that are 3rd party -- if so, you might want to make a seperate package module. <mark_weaver>xjgrant: you are not qualified to answer questions for developers of guix <xjgrant>mark_weaver: Calm down there, I was saying probably and offering general advice. I was not saying definitively to do something. <mark_weaver>please stop answering questions here that are beyond your knowledge. you frequently make guesses and provide incorrect information. <mark_weaver>the problem is that sometimes you answer questions incorrect for new people, when no one more knowledgeable is around to correct you. <xjgrant>What technical questions have I "answered", that were blantanly wrong? <mark_weaver>well, the last two examples that come to mind were telling someone "as long as it's FOSS, it's okay", and "in theory everything should work" on OS X. <DusXMT>xjgrant: for example, that guix `should just work' on OSX <xjgrant>I said in theory, and yes, in theory, it should be possible. <DusXMT>"in theory, it should just work", I remember that line <xjgrant>DusXMT: I'd need a direct quote; Memory is failable and that's not something I would phrase purposely like that. <xjgrant>In theory, it makes sense that it would work. <DusXMT>`makes sence' and `does' are different things <xjgrant>DusXMT: That's not the point, nor the question that was asked. <DusXMT>anyone can come up with such a conclusion, they were asking a concrete question, and you told them what you did <mark_weaver>xjgrant: the point is, you make it sound to outsiders like you know what you're talking about, even when you are making guesses with very little knowledge. <xjgrant>Yeah, nothing I said was unreasonable there. <mark_weaver>xjgrant: I disagree. you have a long-standing habit of making guesses but presenting them as facts, and spreading misinformation. please stop it. <xjgrant>mark_weaver: Well, if you're using those two statements as examples -- those are poor examples. <xjgrant>I mean, if you want I'll add a disclaimer that I'm an idiot in front of everything. <xjgrant>mark_weaver: No, objectively tell me how those statements are false. <mark_weaver>you wrote "mbuf: As long as it's "FOSS" it's fine." and that's false. <xjgrant>mark_weaver: All "FOSS" software should be fine to be packaged, then I link to the FSF definitions of FOSS and accepted licenses thereafter. <xjgrant>mark_weaver: What license are accepted or not accepted, that are not on that list? <mark_weaver>it's not about licenses. there are additional restrictions beyond simply being "free software" that are required for packages of a FSDG-compliant distribution. <mark_weaver>look, you are wasting my time, and it's pissing me off <xjgrant>mark_weaver: Then this should be made clear somewhere; is this blatant in the documentation? <DusXMT>xjgrant: for example, the software may not depend or recommend any non-free software. This is why we have Icecat instead fo Firefox, for example <xjgrant>Okay, so there was one valid example of actually being wrong of the two. <xjgrant>I will conceed to that, but not in the phrasing of the response to OS X. <mark_weaver>xjgrant: I don't give a damn what you concede to, and these are not the only two examples either, just the only two I can be bothered to find at the moment. this is not the first time I've had to talk to you about this. <xjgrant>mark_weaver: CALM DOWN; I am conceding to being a problem and will work on it. <xjgrant>You going apeship is going to get me hostile and definssive and to say bugger off to you, if this keeps going on. *xjgrant will just let people lurk/leave if worse comes to worst. <mark_weaver>if I hadn't gotten here in time to correct you, that OS X guy might well have wasted a lot of time trying to get Guix going on OS X. <xjgrant>Or add a blatant disclaimer fwor all advice I have. <mark_weaver>but it seems that you see nothing wrong with what you said. <xjgrant>mark_weaver: Yes, I don't. In theory, it should work. In theory doesn't mean "yeah, it should work without you having to mess with it at all". <mark_weaver>xjgrant: if you add a disclaimer that you're not a Guix developer and am making guesses, then I wouldn't have such a basis to complain. <DusXMT>xjgrant: it couldn't possibly work,is the thing, not yet at least <DusXMT>xjgrant: phant0mas could tell you that porting Guix to a different OS is no weekend project <xjgrant>DusXMT: Hurd has many issuses using the upstream GNU toolchain for stuff like libc -- so it's not a 1:1 corelation. *xjgrant starts to append "Probably wrong but, " to every statement that's not a question in here. <mark_weaver>"in theory" doesn't mean "this is a total guess from someone who knows very little about the subject". to me, and I think to most people, it means that for someone who _understands_ the theory, it should work, but it's not yet tested. *phant0mas catching up with the conversation <mark_weaver>you don't understand the theory of Guix, so you should make statements about what should work "in theory" without a big fat disclaimer. <xjgrant>Again, I'm done with this conversation. It's inane to the point of insanity that the same thing is just recpericating over and over. Again, I admitted wrong. On OS X, I could have phrased the other one slightly better (as in mentioned I don't know the core enough to make such declaritive statements and that I'm not making a declartive statment, but that I know Guile & Nix work with OS X -- so it should work with enough buggery). On the <xjgrant>the false statement should have been more clear too. <xjgrant>I'm done; I will not shut up generally, but will preface with something aloing the lines of "Probally wrong but, " or similar if I'm giving any advice. <xjgrant>mark_weaver: I'm curious then, what's your stance on where Ardour should go and your reasoning? <mark_weaver>but it's still inappropriate for you answer such questions for developrs *xjgrant has packages in Guix ... I think I have at least a tinge of understanding about what shoudl go where. <xjgrant>At least some general feel, and too, it's not like there is a strict standard to which people confirm to anyways when it comes to /gnu/packages' structure./ <xjgrant>mark_weaver: I was, but when you say something blatanly false and/or misleading. Let's assume that in any sense of the word I am not a developer of guix (I've made one minor patch that was not packages, and that was just simple macros ... so I will concede to that), but I am a somewhat acitve packager (not a bunch, at least a package a release since the first hackathon) -- and saying I'm not allowed to have an opinon over something I <xjgrant>actually do have some experience in, when too, there aren't even strong structural standards are ... is a bit intellectually disleading and painting me as a full fool in about every capacity. <rekado>alezost: this looks great. Thanks! I'll try this method. <xjgrant>I don't know, it's not even really the same conversation; It's more divergent of the original point. I was just curious what I said that was so outrageous I said to rekado, initally that spawnend this whole conversation again. Typically there's something that sets people off and I wouldn't expect giving /any adivice/ even advice one agrees with, would be that x-factor. :^P <xjgrant>I'm done, I just found that odd and wanted to know what was what I assumed was so wrong and off with said mentioned statement to rekado -- that brought this on. <mark_weaver>xjgrant: in your case, I am sensitized to the issue because you are prone to spreading misinformation, e.g. on Jan 21 here on this channel. <xjgrant>mark_weaver: So it was literally not what advice I gave, it was the act of giving advice generally -- because it was festering and said advice I gave, regardless of the validity, was the trigger? I don't care if that is the case or not, just want to know if it was. <mark_weaver>"somewhat active packager" == 3 commit total, one of which was to update your name and email address. <rekado>I feel I should mention that my intent was indeed to get info from one of the experienced project leads. I also "have got packages in Guix", but I don't think this qualifies me to answer this particular question on my own. <xjgrant>mark_weaver: I promise you, I have at least 6 packages in guix. <xjgrant>Again, not a ton. Not arguing it's a ton, but stating as if I have 0 experience is not accurate. <xjgrant>Also, it should be more than 3 commits. <rekado>I asked because there are some sound-related things here and there already in various modules. <mark_weaver>well, since you keep changing your name (and nick), I guess it's hard to find all of the commits. I searched for "Grant", which found both "Guy Grant" and "Joshua Grant". are there other names to search for?