4 ms·
Which is great. Means you have a clean install that's sure to be reproducible. There's always the option to keep your own channel of non-free packages if you re
by nyberg 7y ago
Which is great. Means you have a clean install that's sure to be reproducible. There's always the option to keep your own channel of non-free packages if you really need them.
- tadfisher 7y agoProprietary packages may still be reproducible. Presumably, you verify a hash of the inputs (e.g. upstream tarball/binary and patches), and the output should still be bit-for-bit the same on any machine given the same inputs. Not to mention that there are many open-source (as in OSI) packages that may not be distributed with Guix System because they use non-FSF-approved software licenses.
- rekado 7y ago> Not to mention that there are many open-source (as in OSI) packages that may not be distributed with Guix System because they use non-FSF-approved software licenses. This is not true; at the very least "many" is wrong in the above statement. Generally, there is virtually no difference between the OSI set of approved licenses and the FSF set. Can you list examples of the many packages that would be considered "open source" (according to the OSI definition) but not also Free Software as per the FSF definition?