Ludovic Courtès writes: >> + (inputs >> + `(("python-setuptools" ,python-setuptools) > > Move this one to ‘native-inputs’. Done! Though... I think we should be careful with the assumption that this is true or should be done without looking careful. For example, MediaGoblin actually *uses* setuptools in the package itself, or more specifically pkg_resources which allows you to find the paths of static files bundled directly with python modules. So unless we know we don't need the input, we should maybe include this in the normal inputs? But I'm unsure. Anyway, it seems fine in this case. >> + ("python-feedgenerator" ,python-feedgenerator) >> + ("python-jinja2" ,python-jinja2) >> + ("python-pygments" ,python-pygments) >> + ("python-docutils" ,python-docutils) >> + ("python-pytz" ,python-pytz) >> + ("python-blinker" ,python-blinker) >> + ("python-unidecode" ,python-unidecode) >> + ("python-six" ,python-six) >> + ("python-dateutil-2" ,python-dateutil-2))) > > If Pelican is simply meant to be used as a command-line tool, this is > fine. Otherwise, if it’s meant as a Python library (or both), these > probably need to be moved to ‘propagated-inputs’. It's a command line tool. >> + (arguments >> + `(;; Requires a lot more packages to do unit tests :P >> + #:tests? #f > > Add “XXX” to make it more prominent. :-) Done >> + (synopsis >> + "Python-based static site publishing system") > > Keep it on a single line. Done >> + (description >> + "A tool to generate a static blog from reStructuredText, Markdown input files, > > “Pelican is a tool...” Done >> + ;; No indication that this is "or later" in the source, >> + ;; must assume AGPLv3 only >> + (license agpl3))) > > Unless the license version is explicitly specified somewhere, the > recipient can use any version of the license (per Section 14 of GPLv3), > which we’d translate it as ‘agpl3+’ here. That's good news! And I didn't know about that! > Could you send an updated patch? > > TIA, > Ludo’. Done! And thank you!