From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: Texlive
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 22:03:29 +0100
Message-ID: <87pq0eh3ry.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <201302031756.11314.andreas@enge.fr> <87ip691c95.fsf@gnu.org>
	<201302051804.13252.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]:34277)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1U2pg0-0008Gv-1G
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Feb 2013 16:03:38 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1U2pfy-0008Vl-IO
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Feb 2013 16:03:35 -0500
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.104]:3491)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>)
	id 1U2pfy-0008VF-4R
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Feb 2013 16:03:34 -0500
In-Reply-To: <201302051804.13252.andreas@enge.fr> (Andreas Enge's message of
	"Tue, 5 Feb 2013 18:04:13 +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

Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> skribis:

> Am Sonntag, 3. Februar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Court=C3=A8s:

[...]

>> Yes, or we could just export the =E2=80=98license=E2=80=99 constructor f=
rom (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=
=20
> that we will only package free software; so a license field that can only=
=20
> state "a collection of free licenses, for details, see the source" convey=
s=20
> really no information at all. So I do not see what to construct here. My=
=20
> suggestion:
>
> (define fsf
>   (license "fsf"
>            "http://www.gnu.org/licenses/"
>            "A collection of free licenses according to the FSF, see the=20
> 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=E2=80=99s copyleft.

Similar to =E2=80=98bsd-style=E2=80=99, what about adding:

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

For TeX Live, we=E2=80=99d use

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

WDYT?

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

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

Thanks,
Ludo=E2=80=99.