Re: [PATCH] Add libconfig.

[Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wurmus@mdc-berlin.de>]

Hi Roel,

> This is a patch to add libconfig.  It's a simple library without any
> special dependencies.  The reason to add this, is because I'm packaging
> other software that depends on libconfig.
>
> I ran guix lint on it, but I still have a problem with TLS, so I'm not
> 100% confident running guix lint is clean.  Please let me know if
> something is wrong with the patch.

this looks really good.  Thank you.

> From a21ebd71a39bf5000e5809514f0e00185311795d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org>
> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:45:47 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add libconfig.

> * gnu/packages/libconfig.scm: New file.
> * gnu-system.am (GNU_SYSTEM_MODULES): Add it.

I have an irrational desire to group similar package expressions in
modules rather than to add new modules.  In this case we have
“textutils.scm” and “xml.scm” that seem related.

Someone else should say whether a new module for this is better than
grouping it with one of the above modules.  If a new module is indeed
warranted the commit message is perfect.

> +(define-public libconfig
> +  (package
> +    (name "libconfig")
> +    (version "1.5")
> +    (source (origin
> +              (method url-fetch)
> +              (uri (string-append
> +                    "http://www.hyperrealm.com/libconfig/libconfig-"
> +                    version ".tar.gz"))
> +              (sha256
> +               (base32
> +                "1xh3hzk63v4y8815lc5209m3s6ms2cpgw4h5hg462i4f1lwsl7g3"))))
> +    (build-system gnu-build-system)
> +    (home-page "http://www.hyperrealm.com/libconfig/")
> +    (synopsis "C/C++ configuration file library")
> +    (description
> +     "Libconfig is a simple library for manipulating structured configuration
> +files.  This file format is more compact and more readable than XML.  And
> +unlike XML, it is type-aware, so it is not necessary to do string parsing in
> +application code.")
> +    (license license:lgpl2.1)))

The license is actually “lgpl2.1+” because the file headers say this:

    “either version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later
    version.”

Other than that it looks perfect to me.  Thanks again!

~~ Ricardo