* [PATCH] gnu: Add psutils.
@ 2013-01-20 22:33 Andreas Enge
2013-01-21 20:15 ` Ludovic Courtès
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Enge @ 2013-01-20 22:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bug-guix
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 297 bytes --]
The attached patch adds psutils. Its license is homebrewed:
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/p/psutils/current/copyright
Does it qualify as "bsd-like"? If not, would it make sense to add a license
"other" to licenses.scm, which takes the same parameters as "bsd-like"?
Andreas
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1529 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: 0001-gnu-Add-psutils.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 2510 bytes --]
From 2ed9a3862d3f120986ed40863a26a88c64f5ded7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:26:11 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add psutils.
* gnu/packages/ghostscript.scm (psutils): New variable.
---
gnu/packages/ghostscript.scm | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 42 insertions(+)
diff --git a/gnu/packages/ghostscript.scm b/gnu/packages/ghostscript.scm
index a375675..a2ca108 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/ghostscript.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/ghostscript.scm
@@ -75,6 +75,48 @@ paper size.")
(license license:gpl2)
(home-page "http://packages.qa.debian.org/libp/libpaper.html")))
+(define-public psutils
+ (package
+ (name "psutils")
+ (version "17")
+ (source (origin
+ (method url-fetch)
+ (uri "ftp://ftp.knackered.org/pub/psutils/psutils.tar.gz")
+ (sha256 (base32
+ "1r4ab1fvgganm02kmm70b2r1azwzbav2am41gbigpa2bb1wynlrq"))))
+ (build-system gnu-build-system)
+ (inputs `(("perl" ,perl)))
+ (arguments
+ `(#:tests? #f ; none provided
+ #:phases
+ (alist-replace
+ 'configure
+ (lambda* (#:key inputs outputs #:allow-other-keys #:rest args)
+ (let ((perl (assoc-ref inputs "perl"))
+ (out (assoc-ref outputs "out")))
+ (copy-file "Makefile.unix" "Makefile")
+ (substitute* "Makefile"
+ (("/usr/local/bin/perl") (string-append perl "/bin/perl")))
+ (substitute* "Makefile"
+ (("/usr/local") out))
+ (substitute* "Makefile"
+ (("-mkdir") "mkdir -p"))
+ ;; for the install phase
+ (substitute* "Makefile"
+ ((" install.include") ""))
+ ;; drop installation of non-free files
+ ))
+ %standard-phases)))
+ (synopsis "psutils, a collection of utilities for manipulating PostScript documents")
+ (description
+ "PSUtils is a collection of utilities for manipulating PostScript
+documents. Programs included are psnup, for placing out several logical pages
+on a single sheet of paper, psselect, for selecting pages from a document,
+pstops, for general imposition, psbook, for signature generation for booklet
+printing, and psresize, for adjusting page sizes.")
+ (license "other")
+ (home-page "http://knackered.org/angus/psutils/")))
+
(define-public ghostscript
(package
(name "ghostscript")
--
1.7.10.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add psutils.
2013-01-20 22:33 [PATCH] gnu: Add psutils Andreas Enge
@ 2013-01-21 20:15 ` Ludovic Courtès
2013-01-21 20:45 ` Andreas Enge
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2013-01-21 20:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andreas Enge; +Cc: bug-guix
Hi!
Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> skribis:
> The attached patch adds psutils. Its license is homebrewed:
> http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/p/psutils/current/copyright
> Does it qualify as "bsd-like"?
It looks like BSD-3 to me, or at least “BSD-like”.
> If not, would it make sense to add a license "other" to licenses.scm,
> which takes the same parameters as "bsd-like"?
I think (guix licenses) should export the constructor, but under the
name ‘make-license’ to avoid clashes with the ‘license’ field in
‘package’ records.
> + (substitute* "Makefile"
> + (("/usr/local/bin/perl") (string-append perl "/bin/perl")))
Please align the opening paren under the ‘u’. (Perhaps your editor can
be tought to always do that?)
> + (substitute* "Makefile"
> + ((" install.include") ""))
> + ;; drop installation of non-free files
> + ))
Please put the comment above the line it refers to, and move closing
parentheses to the end of the line.
Nitpickingly yours, ;-)
Ludo’.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add psutils.
2013-01-21 20:15 ` Ludovic Courtès
@ 2013-01-21 20:45 ` Andreas Enge
2013-01-21 22:43 ` Ludovic Courtès
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Enge @ 2013-01-21 20:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: bug-guix
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1000 bytes --]
Am Montag, 21. Januar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
> > Does it qualify as "bsd-like"?
> It looks like BSD-3 to me, or at least “BSD-like”.
Sort of. Except that the second clause states that source code needs to be
provided, whereas BSD just states that binary distributions need to keep
the copyright notice.
I could also add an entry to the licenses file, but I am afraid we might
end up with almost as many licenses as packages.
> > If not, would it make sense to add a license "other" to licenses.scm,
> > which takes the same parameters as "bsd-like"?
> I think (guix licenses) should export the constructor, but under the
> name ‘make-license’ to avoid clashes with the ‘license’ field in
> ‘package’ records.
Is this not exactly how bsd-style operates?
> Please align the opening paren under the ‘u’.
> Please put the comment above the line it refers to, and move closing
> parentheses to the end of the line.
Okay, no problem.
Andreas
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4892 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add psutils.
2013-01-21 20:45 ` Andreas Enge
@ 2013-01-21 22:43 ` Ludovic Courtès
2013-01-23 20:07 ` Andreas Enge
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2013-01-21 22:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andreas Enge; +Cc: bug-guix
Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> skribis:
> Am Montag, 21. Januar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
>> > Does it qualify as "bsd-like"?
>> It looks like BSD-3 to me, or at least “BSD-like”.
>
> Sort of. Except that the second clause states that source code needs to be
> provided, whereas BSD just states that binary distributions need to keep
> the copyright notice.
Oh, OK.
> I could also add an entry to the licenses file, but I am afraid we might
> end up with almost as many licenses as packages.
Agreed, that’s a problem. :-)
>> > If not, would it make sense to add a license "other" to licenses.scm,
>> > which takes the same parameters as "bsd-like"?
>> I think (guix licenses) should export the constructor, but under the
>> name ‘make-license’ to avoid clashes with the ‘license’ field in
>> ‘package’ records.
>
> Is this not exactly how bsd-style operates?
Yes, but it’s only for BSD-style licenses.
Thanks!
Ludo’.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add psutils.
2013-01-21 22:43 ` Ludovic Courtès
@ 2013-01-23 20:07 ` Andreas Enge
2013-01-23 23:10 ` Ludovic Courtès
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Enge @ 2013-01-23 20:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: bug-guix
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 739 bytes --]
Am Montag, 21. Januar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
> Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> skribis:
> > Is this not exactly how bsd-style operates?
> Yes, but it’s only for BSD-style licenses.
Finally I think we agree. I was suggesting to create something analogous to
bsd-style, just with a different name. But maybe bsd-style is enough, as
the description is sufficiently vague:
"This is a BSD-style, non-copyleft free software license."
Fontconfig poses the same problem: They use something that looks
essentially like the MIT/X11 license, but with a slightly different
wording.
So shall we create a new category, and if yes, under which name? Or shall
we use "bsd-style" for anything that does not fit?
Andreas
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3144 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add psutils.
2013-01-23 20:07 ` Andreas Enge
@ 2013-01-23 23:10 ` Ludovic Courtès
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2013-01-23 23:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andreas Enge; +Cc: bug-guix
Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> skribis:
> Am Montag, 21. Januar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
>> Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> skribis:
>> > Is this not exactly how bsd-style operates?
>> Yes, but it’s only for BSD-style licenses.
>
> Finally I think we agree.
Nitpicking is what I do on my spare time. ;-)
> I was suggesting to create something analogous to bsd-style, just with
> a different name. But maybe bsd-style is enough, as the description is
> sufficiently vague: "This is a BSD-style, non-copyleft free software
> license."
>
> Fontconfig poses the same problem: They use something that looks
> essentially like the MIT/X11 license, but with a slightly different
> wording.
>
> So shall we create a new category, and if yes, under which name? Or shall
> we use "bsd-style" for anything that does not fit?
I would say the latter, because the former is going to be an endless
endeavor. The URL passed to ‘bsd-style’ gives more details anyway.
How does that sound?
Ludo’.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-01-23 23:10 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-01-20 22:33 [PATCH] gnu: Add psutils Andreas Enge
2013-01-21 20:15 ` Ludovic Courtès
2013-01-21 20:45 ` Andreas Enge
2013-01-21 22:43 ` Ludovic Courtès
2013-01-23 20:07 ` Andreas Enge
2013-01-23 23:10 ` Ludovic Courtès
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).