New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
parallel: add disableNagMessage #110633
parallel: add disableNagMessage #110633
Conversation
|
73a70d6
to
c1caf3f
Compare
c1caf3f
to
3d6389b
Compare
👍 this looks like a good low-overhead solution, since there is already a wrapper anyway. |
only thing I would test whether |
I don't know how to use |
It seems there is some confusion as to:
Please read: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/citation-notice-faq.txt Especially the last section is relevant. |
@ole-tange Is the mechanism in this PR acceptable? It is false by default and requires positive action by a user to remove the notice, similar to someone setting their own alias or running or just not apply and maintain current behavior? |
If the user by default is presented with the citation notice, it is fine. The fundamental issue is to make sure the users are aware, that citations are what (indirectly) funds future development. If this can be accomplished in a more effective way, it is OK. |
So I guess this goes against disabling the nag message by default, per the author’s (@ole-tange) request. |
My impression is that this patch is in accordance to the author's request. By default, the package will present the citation message. Only by specifically installing parallel-full and overriding the default I also want to note that I do not particularly believe this proposal is necessary [I am starting to think it would be convenient in certain automation scenarios], but it is a compromise between various positions. |
I marked this as stale due to inactivity. → More info |
Motivation for this change
Concern about the nag screen as well as GPL issues.
See #110584
Let's break the problem down into it's components.
Nag
This is a usability concern for some people and for some automation.
GPLv3
I don't think Nixpkgs should get into the habit of "fixing" the potential license issue by patching this out completely. My personal opinion is that it is a bit non-standard, but is technically okay. Regardless, the Nix-community is not a compliance organization, nor is in a good position to enforce this. The author and the GNU organization seems to claim there is no conflict. I recommend this be brought up with them directly. Packaging systems hiding the potential issue from users by default also seems odd.
Things done
adds an option for Nix users to disable the citation request by adding a
--will-cite
to the wrapped parallel call.Potential issues
[]
)Checklist
sandbox
innix.conf
on non-NixOS linux)nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"
./result/bin/
)nix path-info -S
before and after)