bug#61454: closed ([PATCH 0/5] Expose upstream linux sources)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sun, 12 Feb 2023 20:23:35 +0100
with message-id <87r0uusn60.fsf@fsfe.org>
and subject line Re: [bug#61454] [PATCH 0/5] Expose upstream linux sources
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #61454,
regarding [PATCH 0/5] Expose upstream linux sources
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs@gnu.org.)


-- 
61454: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=61454
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> [PATCH 0/5] Expose upstream linux sources
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Sun, 12 Feb 2023 16:39:55 +0100
>
>
>
>
> From: Jelle Licht <jlicht@fsfe.org>
>
> Hey guix,
>
> This patch series should not lead to any rebuilds.  The aim is to expose the
> used linux upstream sources, for use by custom local packages or external
> channels.
>
> Two main concerns I still have:
> * Is this fundamentally going to be an issue with the FSDG? 
> * This is the 'dumb' solution; alternatively, I was thinking of introducing a
>   record to unify all the moving parts (the upstream sources, the deblob
>   scripts) involved in building our linux-libre kernels. That bigger change is
>   ideally something we achieve consensus on before writing some code.
>
>
> Jelle Licht (5):
>   gnu: linux-libre 4.14: Expose upstream sources.
>   gnu: linux-libre 4.19: Expose upstream sources.
>   gnu: linux-libre 5.10: Expose upstream sources.
>   gnu: linux-libre 5.15: Expose upstream sources.
>   gnu: linux-libre 6.1: Expose upstream sources.
>
>  gnu/packages/linux.scm | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
>  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>
>
> base-commit: fb9799ff5f1d90a443dc197535c48041ad6b3865
> -- 
> 2.39.1
>
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: [bug#61454] [PATCH 0/5] Expose upstream linux sources
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Sun, 12 Feb 2023 20:23:35 +0100
>
>
>
>
> Hi Tobias,
>
> Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr> writes:
>
> > Hi Jelle!
> >
> > jlicht@fsfe.org 写道：
> >> * Is this fundamentally going to be an issue with the FSDG?
> >
> > I can't think of a reading of the FSDG where it is not against 
> > both the letter and the spirit.
> >
> > Guix already ventures close to the edge; this would push us clean 
> > over.
>
> Fair enough. I'll go ahead and assume that any "workaround" using public
> bindings exposed by guix can be considered a bug, later to be addressed
> by guix in order to prevent similar situations.
>
> >> * This is the 'dumb' solution; alternatively, I was thinking of 
> >> introducing a
> >>   record to unify all the moving parts (the upstream sources, 
> >>   the deblob
> >>   scripts) involved in building our linux-libre kernels.
> >
> > I'm not sure this will suit your purposes any better without 
> > amounting to the same thing.
>
> It does, so never mind!
>
> Thanks for your input,
> - Jelle
>
>
> --- End Message ---