From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Enge Subject: Re: GNU Guixguix source archive branch, master, updated. v0.3-85-gda7cabd Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 23:52:28 +0200 Message-ID: <20130828215228.GA27907@debian> References: <87d2ox7bxd.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47061) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VEnfX-0004R8-Ga for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 17:52:58 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VEnfQ-0004sd-5t for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 17:52:51 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87d2ox7bxd.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Ludovic =?iso-8859-15?Q?Court=E8s?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:17:18PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > I’d prefer discussing non-trivial doc changes on the list. I considered them trivial, since the information has not been altered, just slightly reorganised. > Regarding the patch: I think the duplicate copyright notice is needed so > that it appears in the Info output. Could you check that? Indeed, so I should add it again. > About the structure: I thought an “Adding New Packages” section that > would include both the licensing requirements and technical advice made > sense, on the grounds that contributors-to-be need to see all of that. > > Rules as suggested by Cyril could go under “Adding New Packages” (and > not “Packaging Guidelines”, as I initially wrote), in appropriate > sub-sections. I find the title "Packaging Guidelines" snappier. And before, there was a subsection "Packaging Guidelines" inside the section "Adding New Packages", so we would have ended up with subsubsections containing the different items. Now it is one level flatter. And still everything that was in "6.3 Adding New Packages" is in "6.3 Packaging Guidelines", so not much changed really. The license requirements are in "6.3.1 Software Freedom", the technical points should become 6.3.2 and so on. Andreas