From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roel Janssen Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add perltidy. Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2016 16:15:58 +0200 Message-ID: <87furogogx.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87oa6c5uty.fsf@gnu.org> <87lh1g5oik.fsf@gnu.org> <87shvokx11.fsf@mdc-berlin.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40055) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bKR8g-0006qL-UQ for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 10:15:51 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bKR8c-0001Lp-OB for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 10:15:50 -0400 In-reply-to: <87shvokx11.fsf@mdc-berlin.de> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: guix-devel Ricardo Wurmus writes: > Roel Janssen writes: > >> Ricardo Wurmus writes: >> >>> Roel Janssen 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 >>>> 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 >>>> ;;; Coypright © 2016 ng0 >>>> ;;; Copyright © 2016 Alex Sassmannshausen >>>> +;;; Copyright © 2016 Roel Janssen >>>> ;;; >>>> ;;; 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