[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[bug#37224] [PATCH 0/4] Add 'archival' checker for 'guix lint'

From: Ludovic Courtès
Subject: [bug#37224] [PATCH 0/4] Add 'archival' checker for 'guix lint'
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 09:41:28 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux)


zimoun <address@hidden> skribis:

> On Fri, 30 Aug 2019 at 01:18, Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Currently, only 25% of our packages are not fetched with ‘url-fetch’.
>> For the remaining 75%, this checker can only report whether the tarball
>> is missing (and apart from and a few other exceptions, it
>> usually _is_ missing) and cannot actually save it.
> Maybe I miss something, but for example guile-2.0 is not yet archived.
> I am not able to find it with their search resources. And `guix lint
> -c archival guile@2.0' reports "guile@2.0.14: source not archived on
> Software Heritage".

Yeah, most not-too-recent tarballs from are archived, so I
don’t know why this one is missing.  We’d have to check with them.

> I agree with the words on #swh-deve by olasd (Nicolas Dandrimont) from
> SWH that the automatic "save" should be optional (even if the default
> is save=true).

Maybe we could have a flag somewhere to turn it off?  The good thing of
having it on (or opt-out) is that we increase the chances that the code
we care about is archived.  :-)

>> The second step will be to write a “lister” for Software Heritage that
>> grabs the list of source code URLs from
>> <>.  That could would run at SWH
>> and it could potentially grab the tarballs, not just the VCS checkouts.
>> Here’s are examples:
>> It should be quite easy for a Pythonista to write something similar
>> for our ‘packages.json’.  Any takers?  :-)
> I am not sure to understand all but I will give a look... I am reading
> their GSoC about this topic [2].

Awesome, thank you!  Having a “guix” lister in place would be perfect.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]