From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: New package: FPLLL
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 22:37:02 +0100
Message-ID: <87a9thzla9.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <201212112323.53992.andreas@enge.fr> <87ehiv9z87.fsf@gnu.org>
	<201212122027.49427.andreas@enge.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:54459)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1TjGSo-0002kg-7i
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:37:07 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1TjGSn-0001lb-4R
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:37:06 -0500
Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.105]:28232)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>)
	id 1TjGSm-0001lX-UK
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:37:05 -0500
In-Reply-To: <201212122027.49427.andreas@enge.fr> (Andreas Enge's message of
	"Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:27:49 +0100")
List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guix>
List-Post: <mailto:bug-guix@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=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: Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr>
Cc: bug-guix@gnu.org

Hi!

Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> skribis:

> 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.

Yes, it is.  (If there were no statements at all in source files, and
just the standard COPYING.LESSER, then it would be =E2=80=9Cor later=E2=80=
=9D too,
because that=E2=80=99s what the license says.)

> 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.

I have mixed feelings.  Categories would often be hard to determine
correctly and intelligently while avoiding circular references, except
in some cases like this one.

> 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).

Yes, makes sense to me.  We could rename multiprecision to algebra, then.

Ludo=E2=80=99.