Hi Ludo, On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 09:41, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > zimoun skribis: > > > On Fri, 30 Aug 2019 at 01:18, Ludovic Courtès 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 ftp.gnu.org and a few other exceptions, it > >> usually _is_ missing) and cannot actually save it. And it is interesting that Nix has the same stats. ;-) https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/swh-devel/2019-08/msg00024.html > > 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 ftp.gnu.org are archived, so I > don’t know why this one is missing. We’d have to check with them. Maybe I have wrong, but bunch of GNU packages seems missing. :-) > > 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. :-) I agree. :-) Speaking of UI, I would expect 2 different commands: - one to check if the package is in SWH, say: guix package --is-in-swh - one to send a "save" request guix lint -c archival And adding an option to turn "the push" off, say: guix lint --no-archival Because when linting the process is generally iterative: guix lint # fix mistake guix lint # fix other mistake etc. and it will save network resource (latency, etc.) by avoiding to check again and again in this lint process; I guess. Or even something in this flavour should be a better UI: guix lint --checkers=description,synopsis --no-checkers=license,archival What do you think? Cheers, simon