Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add perltidy.

[Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org>]

Ricardo Wurmus writes:

> Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>>
>>> Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> Here I have a package recipe for perltidy.  The version number differs
>>>> from the usual scheme, but that's what the project uses, so I cannot do
>>>> much about it.
>>>
>>> I don’t think that’s a problem.
>>>
>>>>From d6cc1580a362f759bbd85107435a47c0eac04954 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>>> From: Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org>
>>>> Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 10:51:58 +0200
>>>> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add perltidy.
>>>>
>>>> * gnu/packages/perl.scm (perltidy): New variable.
>>>> ---
>>>>  gnu/packages/perl.scm | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/gnu/packages/perl.scm b/gnu/packages/perl.scm
>>>> index 74a47b4..e34515e 100644
>>>> --- a/gnu/packages/perl.scm
>>>> +++ b/gnu/packages/perl.scm
>>>> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
>>>>  ;;; Copyright © 2016 Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il>
>>>>  ;;; Coypright © 2016 ng0 <ng0@we.make.ritual.n0.is>
>>>>  ;;; Copyright © 2016 Alex Sassmannshausen <alex@pompo.co>
>>>> +;;; Copyright © 2016 Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org>
>>>>  ;;;
>>>>  ;;; This file is part of GNU Guix.
>>>>  ;;;
>>>> @@ -5986,6 +5987,27 @@ system.")
>>>>  as exceptions to standard program flow.")
>>>>      (license (package-license perl))))
>>>>  
>>>> +(define-public perltidy
>>>> +  (package
>>>> +    (name "perltidy")
>>>
>>> “perltidy” (as in the domain name) or “perl-tidy” (as in the tarball)?
>>> I don’t remember what our naming guidelines say about this.  (I think
>>> “perltidy” is correct.)
>>
>> I think they are clear on the project's name.  For example, the homepage
>> title: “The Perltidy Home Page”
>
> Okay, you’re right.  “perltidy” it is, then! :)
>
>>>> +    (version "20160302")
>>>> +    (source (origin
>>>> +              (method url-fetch)
>>>> +              (uri (string-append "mirror://sourceforge/perltidy/Perl-Tidy-"
>>>> +                                  version ".tar.gz"))
>>>> +              (file-name (string-append name "-" version ".tar.gz"))
>>>
>>> Is this necessary or can we just keep the tarball name as it is?
>>
>> I guess not.  I thought we had to rename the tarballs to match the
>> package names (so in this case, without the dash).  If it is not
>> necessary, I will remove it from the final patch..
>
> I just checked the packaging guidelines in the manual and couldn’t find
> any statement on when to use “file-name”.  It is only described in
> section 5.1.2:
>
>      ‘file-name’ (default: ‘#f’)
>           The file name under which the source code should be saved.
>           When this is ‘#f’, a sensible default value will be used in
>           most cases.  In case the source is fetched from a URL, the
>           file name from the URL will be used.  For version control
>           checkouts, it is recommended to provide the file name
>           explicitly because the default is not very descriptive.
>
> I think the original name is descriptive enough as it actually contains
> the name of the package.
>
> So I think you can remove the “file-name” expression and push this.
>
> ~~ Ricardo

I pushed it after removing the "file-name" part.

Thanks!

Kind regards,
Roel Janssen