|
From: | Jack Hill |
Subject: | Re: best practise between git-fetch vs url-fetch? |
Date: | Mon, 25 May 2020 00:54:25 -0400 (EDT) |
User-agent: | Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) |
On Sun, 24 May 2020, Ludovic Courtès wrote: […]
Another improvement we could make here is improving the message about Software Heritage in guix lint. Most of the other messages it emits are things that the author of a package should consider improving. If the Software Heritage message is less actionable, let's make that clearer so that people don't think there is a problem with their package definition.What message would you suggest?
How about expanding section 7.7 "Invoking Guix Lint" in the manual to include a paragraph of advice in the explanation for each checker. For example, the advice could be could be "change the source to use git-fetch" for "source-unstable-tarball", "exercise judgment on the long-term availability of software sources. We think that code hosted on the GNU ftp servers will be around for a long time, but code on people's personal websites may not be. The greater the risk of the software disappearing, the more important is is to use git-fetch in sources so we can trigger archiving at Software Heritage" for "archival", and "double check whether these inputs really should be native [link to appropriate section of the manual]. If they really need to be, leave a comment in the code briefly explaining why to help future contributors" for "inputs-should-be-native".
Obviously, those aren't fit to be included in the manual as is, but hopefully they give a good idea of what I was thinking. guix lint could remind people to check the manual for advice when it detects lint.
That said, I am open to other options, including that this isn't a problem that we need to solve.
Best, Jack
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |