[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[bug#42048] [PATCH 6/6] services: provenance: Save channel introductions
From: |
zimoun |
Subject: |
[bug#42048] [PATCH 6/6] services: provenance: Save channel introductions. |
Date: |
Wed, 01 Jul 2020 14:49:11 +0200 |
On Wed, 01 Jul 2020 at 14:12, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
> Oh I’m sorry, I think I misunderstood your question back then!
My poor English does not help either. :-)
>>> With this patch set, someone pulling guix-bimsb would just end up
>>> pulling guix-past unauthenticated; there’s not even a warning.
>>>
>>> (There’s currently a warning in (guix channels), but only when pulling
>>> an unauthenticated 'guix channel. It’s perhaps too early to have that
>>> warning enabled for all channels. WDYT?)
>>
>> Enable the warning appears to me a good idea because this dependency is
>> like "doing something I am not necessary aware in my back".
>
> I’m talking about the warning that says “this channel is
> unauthenticated”, which is mostly orthogonal to the discussion at hand.
> The reason I said it’s perhaps too early to enable it is that people
> haven’t had a chance to make their channel “authenticable” yet.
Well, the possible scenarii are: when pulling guix-bimsb which ends up
to pull guix-past:
1- unauthenticated guix-bimsb and unauthenticated guix-past
2- authenticated guix-bimsb and unauthenticated guix-past
3- unauthenticated guix-bimsb and authenticated guix-past
4- authenticated guix-bimsb and authenticated guix-past
The #1 and #4 do not deserve a warning.
The point #3 neither and even the authentication of guix-past should be
turned off, at least now.
The point #2 requires a warning. Because if I am pulling a
authenticated channel, I expect that all the code it pulls is
authenticated which will not be the case, so IMHO it deserves a
warning.
Then it is up to the guix-bimsb channel to add an introduction for the
dependency using the format you described.
Cheers,
simon