From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Feb 17 09:40:23 2020 Received: (at 28659) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Feb 2020 14:40:23 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38203 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j3hZP-0003oB-1D for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 09:40:23 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:49709) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j3hZN-0003nt-Rp; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 09:40:22 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:53156) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j3hZI-0004Wz-MZ; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 09:40:16 -0500 Received: from [2001:660:6102:320:e120:2c8f:8909:cdfe] (port=48612 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1j3hZH-0005kE-GE; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 09:40:16 -0500 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= To: zimoun Subject: Re: bug#39575: guix time-machine fails when a tarball was modified in-place References: <87y2t7j54n.fsf@gnu.org> <87eeuy2mua.fsf@gnu.org> <87pnehe0zk.fsf@gnu.org> <878sl47t0q.fsf@gnu.org> <87k14m3iiy.fsf@gnu.org> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 29 =?utf-8?Q?Pluvi=C3=B4se?= an 228 de la =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 15:40:13 +0100 In-Reply-To: (zimoun's message of "Mon, 17 Feb 2020 11:18:22 +0100") Message-ID: <87pned6zw2.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 28659 Cc: 39575@debbugs.gnu.org, 28659@debbugs.gnu.org, Jan Nieuwenhuizen X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) Hi, zimoun skribis: > On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 at 11:59, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >> zimoun skribis: >> > On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 22:34, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrot= e: > >> >> Also, one could argue that we=E2=80=99d steer users towards downloadi= ng from our >> >> server, which could be a privacy concern (probably not a strong argum= ent >> >> since one can easily change the substitute URLs.) >> > >> > I am not following the privacy concern. >> > What do you mean? >> >> I mean that by default, someone who=E2=80=99s disabled substitutes (pres= umably >> out of security or privacy concerns) would find themself downloading >> source code from ci.guix.gnu.org instead of various upstream sites. [...] > By privacy concern, do you mean that Guix could collect who downloads > what; in a central fashion? Which is not the case when one downloads > from several distributed upstream sources. Right? Exactly. But like I wrote above, I don=E2=80=99t think it=E2=80=99s a stro= ng argument. What remains is the issue with =E2=80=98content-addressed-item?=E2=80=99, t= hen. Ludo=E2=80=99.