From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Nala Ginrut Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel,gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Collecting suggestions of Guildhall Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 23:21:21 +0800 Organization: HFG Message-ID: <1358004081.23443.110.camel@Renee-desktop.suse> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1358004101 4205 80.91.229.3 (12 Jan 2013 15:21:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 15:21:41 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-devel@gnu.org, guile-user@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jan 12 16:21:57 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Tu2uA-0006iT-TY for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 16:21:55 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50303 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tu2tu-0004Cc-KJ for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 10:21:38 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:55033) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tu2to-0004CL-JA for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 10:21:36 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tu2tm-0006uH-DA for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 10:21:32 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-da0-f43.google.com ([209.85.210.43]:54690) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tu2tm-0006uD-5f; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 10:21:30 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-da0-f43.google.com with SMTP id u36so1199217dak.30 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 07:21:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:subject:from:to:date:organization :content-type:x-mailer:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=PFPlNZv84TO1d2AnDNVw+xU7o0fLDXoOI4F6WgYKdrc=; b=Iilzo8uk3rf4n5OTT12/1BaPu4IPnhSng9GjPyeg+RQn0tOGFtYf2H3qqLWsbS9t/N jFyddVoKP4GjoURNAscoAi/G+er9jIuycFsN6u30bdcyOx4b3hjWk1dfVhOpXdqN31AP PGJQLY2kUQy3keD0nh/WwYOe/i/FKOsMzPuDe/QUugMHBp6vUoFL2KubM7Z3m1mPvxz/ RymhMX1+WYl1zbo2LGLH4z2LtS+/Mgq9U7IQngxkx2PUwKYgoexGbvVkNdjdU6fFNESq uy/fICvne2Hy+GzJHCFnAQ31yuaFaQ8IFn6mUeBVaVmyAh3z1VwIAlTSxf30Y/H9eyZf KISw== X-Received: by 10.68.224.165 with SMTP id rd5mr242129134pbc.49.1358004089049; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 07:21:29 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from [192.168.100.103] ([183.13.177.8]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id sy1sm4749732pbc.66.2013.01.12.07.21.24 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 12 Jan 2013 07:21:27 -0800 (PST) X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 209.85.210.43 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:15405 gmane.lisp.guile.user:9847 Archived-At: Hi folks! We'd like to start up guildhall.gnu.org, which is a guilers community MAYBE based on savannah to let you guys share/fetch Guile packages. Just like rubygems.org does. ;-) Since savannah provides many VCS-systems: CVS/subversion/GNU Arch/Mercurial/Bazaar, guilers may choose their favorite to maintain their works, and submit the package to guildhall repository. IMO, a guildhall package must pass these two steps: 1. Package verify policy (PVP) The rules to verify if package is valid/invalid. And the package info specification. Include version-convention & name-convention. It can be checked automatically with a certain tools. 2. Package evaluate policy (PEP) The rules to evaluate a submitted package, we need to classify them. Current categories are: quality/freedom/maintainability/experimental This step has to be checked by human. Though PEP & PVP seems alike, but they are different. If a package can't pass PVP, it can't be classified according to PEP. PEP is used to evaluate the quality of the package, but PVP is about the health of a package. A valid package must be healthy, then it has the qualification to be evaluated. ** Package security policy (PSP) The rules to check if a package security/vulnerability, or even malicious. This seems a hardcore one. I've no idea about it, but it's significant though. Now I'm inviting all folks to share your suggestions about the rules. You may borrow some opinions from other communities anyway. But not limit to the rules, any related suggestions are welcome and appreciated. ;-) Thanks!