From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Enge Subject: Re: New package: FPLLL Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:27:49 +0100 Message-ID: <201212122027.49427.andreas@enge.fr> References: <201212112323.53992.andreas@enge.fr> <87ehiv9z87.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary-01=_1qNyQQaI3mWPmfd" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:33171) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TiryQ-0000X7-E3 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:28:13 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TiryJ-00063H-7r for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:28:06 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87ehiv9z87.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Ludovic =?utf-8?q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: bug-guix@gnu.org --Boundary-01=_1qNyQQaI3mWPmfd Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2012 schrieb Ludovic Court=C3=A8s: > > (license "LGPLv2.1") > It seems to be LGPLv2.1+ rather. The file README.html states: "fplll is distributed under GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1) as published by the Free Software Foundation." I checked two source files, which say "or (at your option) any later version". I suppose this is authoritative. But I will ask the authors to clarify. Am Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2012 schrieb Nikita Karetnikov: > Please use (guix licenses) instead. Could you provide an example on how to do this? As far as I could see, all files in distro/packages still use strings for the licenses. Am Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2012 schrieb Ludovic Court=C3=A8s: > > It could go into multiprecision.scm, or get its own file. > Yes, multiprecision.scm would seem like a good option to me. WDYT? It depends on whether you would rather go for one file per package (maybe to be organised in subdirectories), or one file per group of packages of a similar category. Even in the latter case, it looks like multiprecision.scm is not a very good place, since it regroups the dependencies of gcc. Maybe algebra.scm? It could also contain mpfrcx, gmp-ecc and maybe pari (which does not exactly follow gnu build standards, so I would need some help). Andreas --Boundary-01=_1qNyQQaI3mWPmfd Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Am Mittwoch= , 12. Dezember 2012 schrieb Ludovic Court=C3=A8s:

> > = (license "LGPLv2.1")

> It see= ms to be LGPLv2.1+ rather.

&nb= sp;

The file RE= ADME.html states:

"fplll= is distributed under GNU Lesser General

Public Lice= nse (v2.1) as published by the Free Software Foundation."

&nb= sp;

I checked t= wo source files, which say

"or (a= t your option) any later version".

I suppose t= his is authoritative.

&nb= sp;

But I will = ask the authors to clarify.

&nb= sp;

Am Mittwoch= , 12. Dezember 2012 schrieb Nikita Karetnikov:

> Please= use (guix licenses) instead.

&nb= sp;

Could you p= rovide an example on how to do this? As far as I could see, all

files in di= stro/packages still use strings for the licenses.

&nb= sp;

Am Mittwoch= , 12. Dezember 2012 schrieb Ludovic Court=C3=A8s:

> > I= t could go into multiprecision.scm, or get its own file.

> Yes, m= ultiprecision.scm would seem like a good option to me. WDYT?

&nb= sp;

It depends = on whether you would rather go for one file per package (maybe

to be organ= ised in subdirectories), or one file per group of packages of a

similar cat= egory.

&nb= sp;

Even in the= latter case, it looks like multiprecision.scm is not a very

good place,= since it regroups the dependencies of gcc. Maybe algebra.scm?

It could al= so contain mpfrcx, gmp-ecc and maybe pari (which does not

exactly fol= low gnu build standards, so I would need some help).

&nb= sp;

Andreas

&nb= sp;

--Boundary-01=_1qNyQQaI3mWPmfd--