From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich =?utf-8?Q?Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1?=
	=?utf-8?Q?=2FKammer?=)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add scheme-bytestructures
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 15:15:52 +0200
Message-ID: <87fuo3f2lz.fsf@gmail.com>
References: <CAL7_Mo9DMh9y--KOMMtNVqo=y_-JSKMaeHru2Mp-Omv-JXa8dg@mail.gmail.com>
	<87fuo4hz3c.fsf@openmailbox.org> <8760p0gcer.fsf@gnu.org>
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]:34912)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <taylanbayirli@gmail.com>) id 1btwuT-0001eG-Pk
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 09:15:58 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <taylanbayirli@gmail.com>) id 1btwuS-0003RE-DT
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 09:15:57 -0400
In-Reply-To: <8760p0gcer.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic
	\=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\=
	\=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Mon, 10 Oct 2016 22:46:36 +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: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: guix-devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>

ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes:

> Hi Amirouche,
>
> Some comments to complement Kei=E2=80=99s.
>
> Kei Kebreau <kei@openmailbox.org> skribis:
>
>> Amirouche Boubekki <amirouche.boubekki@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Warning: scheme-bytestructures works on various implementation of Schem=
e but this patch adds
>>> it only for guile-2.0.
>>>
>>> This is a pure scheme package there is no autotools that's why I use th=
e trivial-build-system.
>>>
>>> This doesn't run the test suite, yet.
>>>
>>> From fb2eb7ffd88ec4fba09411195a54b59d67d9c137 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Amirouche <amirouche@hypermove.net>
>>> Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 12:31:20 +0200
>>> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add scheme-bytestructures
>>>
>>> * gnu/packages/guile.scm (scheme-bytestructures): New variable.
>>>
>>> diff --git a/gnu/packages/guile.scm b/gnu/packages/guile.scm
>>> index 0890f19..383990e 100644
>>> --- a/gnu/packages/guile.scm
>>> +++ b/gnu/packages/guile.scm
>>> @@ -1265,4 +1265,105 @@ is no support for parsing block and inline leve=
l HTML.")
>>>  (define-public guile2.2-commonmark
>>>    (package-for-guile-2.2 guile-commonmark))
>>>=20=20
>>> +(define-public scheme-bytestructures
>>> +  (package
>>> +    (name "scheme-bytestructures")
>
> I would suggest calling it =E2=80=9Cguile-scheme-bytestructures=E2=80=9D =
(or
> =E2=80=9Cguile-bytestructures=E2=80=9D?) to distinguish this package from=
 the same one
> built for another implementation.

FWIW, second option sounds good to me (guile-bytestructures), speaking
as bytestructures author.

>>> +    (license gpl3)))
>
> Probably =E2=80=98gpl3+=E2=80=99; could you check?

The intention is gpl3+ so if any file implies otherwise that's an error
on my end.  I'm pretty sure I've used standard gpl3+ boilerplate
everywhere though.

Thanks all for doing this. :-)

Taylan