From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:49842) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gntcp-0004gY-4N for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Jan 2019 18:14:03 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gntco-0007fU-Bu for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Jan 2019 18:14:02 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:48785) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gntcn-0007eq-W4 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Jan 2019 18:14:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gntcn-0004WW-LM for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Jan 2019 18:14:01 -0500 Subject: [bug#34222] [PATCH 04/15] gnu: Add ruby-racc. Resent-Message-ID: References: <87y376ghl0.fsf@cbaines.net> <20190127170820.28937-1-mail@cbaines.net> <20190127170820.28937-4-mail@cbaines.net> <871s4yt3iv.fsf@elephly.net> <87lg36gc8m.fsf@cbaines.net> <87k1iphqdz.fsf@cbaines.net> From: Ricardo Wurmus In-reply-to: <87k1iphqdz.fsf@cbaines.net> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 20:26:51 +0100 Message-ID: <87ef8xsxz8.fsf@elephly.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Christopher Baines Cc: 34222@debbugs.gnu.org Christopher Baines writes: > Christopher Baines writes: > >> Ricardo Wurmus writes: >> >>> Christopher Baines writes: >>> >>>> Required for ruby-ast and ruby-parser. >>>> >>>> * gnu/packages/ruby.scm (ruby-racc): New variable. >>> [=E2=80=A6] >>>> + (license license:expat))) >>> >>> On the website it says that the license is =E2=80=9CLGPL=E2=80=9D (no v= ersion is >>> provided). Could you please confirm the license? >> >> Indeed, the metadata in the gem is wrong. The information on the license >> is a bit sparse. LGPL 2.1 is included in the sources, and there is one >> file which references this in the header. > > Actually, there is a lot more, I forgot to pass "-r" to > licensecheck. There's also 3 files where it says: > > You can distribute/modify this program under the same terms of ruby. > > So I might put this instead. What do you think? > > + (license (list license:lgpl2.1 > + license:ruby)))) This would be fine with a comment. Thanks! --=20 Ricardo