Re: Packaging Inferno

[ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)]

Hello Diego,

Diego Nicola Barbato <dnbarbato@posteo.de> 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
<https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#trademarks>
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?).

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’.