From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: Packaging Inferno
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2018 15:00:10 +0200
Message-ID: <87bm841tlx.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <87a7nssth1.fsf@GlaDOS.home>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53488)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1g9V9L-0003at-4A
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Oct 2018 09:00:43 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1g9V9D-00025h-0e
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Oct 2018 09:00:37 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87a7nssth1.fsf@GlaDOS.home> (Diego Nicola Barbato's message of
	"Fri, 05 Oct 2018 10:11:54 +0200")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Diego Nicola Barbato <dnbarbato@posteo.de>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

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#trade=
marks>
to determine whether there=E2=80=99s a problem at all.

Could you also check whether all the code is GPLv2+ like the =E2=80=98licen=
se=E2=80=99
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 =E2=80=98gnu-build-system=E2=80=99 would a=
llow you to
simplify the package definition.

>              ;; build mk
>              (invoke "./makemk.sh")

It would be ideal if we had a separate package for =E2=80=98mk=E2=80=99 (I =
suppose it
can run on POSIX systems, right?).

Once you=E2=80=99ve double-checked the licensing and trademark situation, I
think you can go ahead and submit it as a patch (or two patches, with
=E2=80=98mk=E2=80=99 separately).

Thanks!

Ludo=E2=80=99.