From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nils Gillmann Subject: Re: Packaging Inferno Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 13:47:22 +0000 Message-ID: <20181008134722.bulv4wn6up6dmvx2@abyayala> References: <87a7nssth1.fsf@GlaDOS.home> <87bm841tlx.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]:45192) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g9W5W-0000KF-J5 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Oct 2018 10:00:54 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g9Vrl-0005Jn-N1 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Oct 2018 09:46:34 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87bm841tlx.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." 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" To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, Diego Nicola Barbato Ludovic Courtès transcribed 1.9K bytes: > Hello Diego, > > Diego Nicola Barbato skribis: > > > I have written a package definition for Inferno and I would like to know > > if it would make sense to add it to Guix. I am asking because I am not > > sure if it is compatible with the FSDG (bundled fonts, trademarks, ...) > > and if it would be of any use to anyone. > > Removing the proprietary(?) fonts like you did sounds like the right > thing to do. As for trademarks, please see > > to determine whether there’s a problem at all. > > Could you also check whether all the code is GPLv2+ like the ‘license’ > field suggests? > > Do I get it right that the build result is a script that launches > Inferno as a GNU/Linux process? It seems like it could be useful. > > Some comments about the package definition: > > > (build-system trivial-build-system) > > (native-inputs `(("bash" ,bash) > > ("coreutils" ,coreutils) > > ("grep" ,grep) > > ("sed" ,sed) > > ("awk" ,gawk) > > ("xz" ,xz) > > ("tar" ,tar) > > ("gcc-toolchain" ,gcc-toolchain) )) > > (inputs `(("libx11" ,libx11) > > ("xorgproto" ,xorgproto) > > ("libxext" ,libxext))) > > Like Efraim wrote, I think using ‘gnu-build-system’ would allow you to > simplify the package definition. > > > ;; build mk > > (invoke "./makemk.sh") > > It would be ideal if we had a separate package for ‘mk’ (I suppose it > can run on POSIX systems, right?). I can finish my mk package and send it in. My mk is the canonical set of mk files as used by bmake. Sources are from http://crufty.net/help/sjg/mk-files.htm and/or places linked from there. If this matches the mk mentioned here, I can create this patch. > Once you’ve double-checked the licensing and trademark situation, I > think you can go ahead and submit it as a patch (or two patches, with > ‘mk’ separately). > > Thanks! > > Ludo’. >