Re: Texlive

[ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)]

Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> skribis:

> Am Sonntag, 3. Februar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:

[...]

>> Yes, or we could just export the ‘license’ constructor from (guix
>> licenses).  That would allow us to make a custom <license> objects when
>> needed, like here.
>
> Or we could leave it empty in some way; just call it "free"? It is clear 
> that we will only package free software; so a license field that can only 
> state "a collection of free licenses, for details, see the source" conveys 
> really no information at all. So I do not see what to construct here. My 
> suggestion:
>
> (define fsf
>   (license "fsf"
>            "http://www.gnu.org/licenses/"
>            "A collection of free licenses according to the FSF, see the 
> source for details."))

Well, for licenses that we fail to classify, I think we should at least
provide a URL or file name to look at, along with an indication of
whether it’s copyleft.

Similar to ‘bsd-style’, what about adding:

  (define (copyleft url #:optional (comment "")) ...)
  (define (fsf-free url #:optional (comment "")) ...)

For TeX Live, we’d use

  (fsf-free "http://tug.org/texlive/copying.html")

WDYT?

>> > (define-public texlive
>> > 
>> >   (package
>> >   
>> >    (name "texlive")
>> >    (version "2012")
>> Should be 20120701 no?
>
> There is one edition per year, commonly refered to as "TeX Live 20YY"; so 
> there is no reason to go into more datails.

OK (I was wondering because the tarball name contains additional digits.)

Thanks,
Ludo’.