> On Monday, December 6, 2021, 01:53:09 PM CST, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote: > > > > > > Am Donnerstag, den 02.12.2021, 06:32 +0000 schrieb Jaft: > > * gnu/packages/mega.scm (mega-sdk):Add MEGA SDK > Should be "New variable." Which part should be "New variable"? "* gnu/packages/mega.scm (mega-sdk): New variable"? Or the whole line? "* New variable"? > > The SDK is a dependency of MEGAsync so I thought to make a new file > > since there's multiple packages that are MEGA related and then I > > discovered that the megacmd package exists; is it better for this to > > be placed in sync.scm, next to megacmd? > Sync is good.  If existing Mega packages use the SDK, try to unbundle > them. Makes sense; megatools doesn't seem to rely on it but megacmd pulls from git recursively since the SDK repo.'s setup as a module for it so I've adjusted that definition to make use of the SDK, now. > > --- > I don't know if I told you that yet, but comments ought to go below > this line. Mmm, I think you did but I must've misunderstood as I thought you were saying the opposite; noted and I'll do it the other way, going forward. > > +    (package > > +      (name "mega-sdk") > > +      (version version) > There's no reason to let-bind version if you're just going to assign it > here anyway. It hadn't been clear to me that the macro functions in that fashion; I've removed the use of let. > > +      (arguments `(#:tests? #f)) > Never leave #:tests? #f uncommented. Makes sense; that's been revised. > > +      (home-page "https://mega.nz/sdk") > > +      (synopsis "SDK for the MEGA service, offered by MEGA Limited") > Sponsored by RAID: Shadow Legends. I don't understand what this is communicating. > Given the megacli command, what's the relation to existing MEGA > packages, particularly megacmd? > > Cheers Noted above (and addressed in the new patch). It seems like I'll likely have to make further changes but I've attached what I have for the patch, thus far, just to keep track of what changes have been made.