On 06-08-2022 04:20, Christopher Rodriguez wrote:

> +(define-module (gnu packages bqn)

Copyright and license headers are missing. Also, usually we don't do 
per-package modules but rather thematic modules, though that's not a 
hard rule especially if there are technical problems with that.

> +  #:use-module ((guix licenses) #:prefix license:)
> +  #:use-module (guix gexp)
> +  #:use-module (guix packages)
> +  #:use-module (guix download)
> +  #:use-module (guix git-download)
> +  #:use-module (guix build-system copy)
> +  #:use-module (guix build-system gnu)
> +  #:use-module (guix utils)
> +  #:use-module (guix deprecation)
I don't think you are using (guix deprecation) below?
> +  #:use-module (gnu packages)
> +  #:use-module (gnu packages libffi)
> +  #:use-module (gnu packages base)
> +  #:use-module (gnu packages pkg-config)
> +  #:use-module (gnu packages llvm)
> +  #:use-module (gnu packages java)
> +  #:use-module (gnu packages compression))
> +(define-public dbqn
> +  (let ((commit "0bbe096fc07d278b679a8479318f1722d096a03e")
> +        (revision "1"))
> +    (package
> +      (name "dbqn")
> +      (version (git-version "0.2.1" revision commit))
> +      (source (origin
> +                (method git-fetch)
> +                (uri (git-reference
> +                      (url"https://github.com/dzaima/BQN")
> +                      (commit commit)))
> +                (file-name (git-file-name name version))
> +                (sha256
> +                 (base32
> +                  "1kxzxz2hrd1871281s4rsi569qk314aqfmng9pkqn8gv9nqhmph0"))))

I have looked at the 'v0.2.1' tag, and it points at the 0bbe096... 
commit, so you are actually packaging version 0.2.1, not some git commit 
after v0.2.1. As such, no need for (git-version ...), you can just write 
"0.2.1" there. Then 'revision' becomes unused and can be dropped, and 
'commit' is only used in a single place anymore so it can be inlined.

> +      (native-inputs (list `(,icedtea-8 "jdk") coreutils zip))
coreutils is an implicit (native-)input, likely no need to to mention it.

Also, the Makefile mentions that the executable to start things has 
#!/bin/bash -- to properly patch is when cross-compiling, you need 
'bash-minimal' or 'bash' in inputs, otherwise it will be patched for the 
wrong architecture.

Also, that script runs 'java' -- make sure it is patched too such that 
java will actually be found -- and to patch it, you need to have 
icedtea:out or openjdk:out in 'inputs'.

> +      (outputs '("out"))
That's the default, no need to set it.

> +       (list #:imported-modules `(,@%gnu-build-system-modules (guix build
> +                                                                    syscalls)
For formatting, (guix build syscalls) should be on a separate line.

> +      (synopsis "BQN implementation based on dzaima/APL")
> +      (description "BQN implementation based on dzaima/APL.")
The synopsis and description are identical, and this doesn't explain 
much to people who don't know what 'BQN' is. Can it be rewritten such 
that people not familiar with BQN can decide whether this ‘BQN’ is 
something that's useful for them? '(guix)Synopses and Descriptions' has 
more information.

> +                            (lambda* (:#key tests?
> +                                            #:allow-other-tags)
Why the : before #:key? Also, no need to break it in separate lines.

> +                          (add-after 'install 'reorder-jar-content
> +                            (lambda* (#:key outputs #:allow-other-keys)
> +                              (apply (assoc-ref ant:%standard-phases
> +                                                'reorder-jar-content)
> +                                     #:outputs (list outputs))))
'output's is a list of strings, now you are giving reorder-jar-content a 
list of lists of strings
However, looking at (guix build ant-build-system), it looks like it just 
wants a list of strings.

As such, maybe it should be:

(add-after 'install 'reorder-jar-content
   (assoc-ref ant:%standard-phases 'reorder-jar-content))

? (untested)  Possibly likewise for the other phases.

> (the implementation is even under single-license GPL!) [...]
You are writing license:expat in the 'license' field, not 
license:gplN/license:gplN+. Is it Expat or is it GPL?

> +      (synopsis "Official BQN sources in BQN")
If they are just sources, you can do (define bqn-bytecode-sources 
(origin ...))

> +      (home-page"https://github.com/mlochbaum/BQN.git")
> +      (license license:gpl3))))
The 'LICENSE' file says something different. I don't think that's the 
home page, maybe <https://mlochbaum.github.io/BQN/> instead?

> +                              (chmod "BQN" 493)
Hexadecimal would be clearer.
> +       "The expected implementation for the BQN language,
> +according to the official documentation of that specification.")
expected -> standard (what's 'expected' depends on the user, they might 
want a different implementation), unless it's not the standard 
implementation.

'documentation of that specification' -> 'the specification (pleonasm)

And maybe remove 'official', given the absence of 'official' in the 
descriptions of, say, guile, gcc, openjdk and java, this sounds 
marketing and unfair to me.

(singeli-bootstrap:)

> +  (let* ((tag "0")
> +         (revision "1")
> +         (commit "fd17b144483549dbd2bcf23e3a37a09219171a99")
> +         (hash "1rr4l7ijzcg25n2igi1mzya6qllh5wsrf3m5i429rlgwv1fwvfji")
> +         (version (git-version tag revision commit)))
I'm not seeing a '0' tag anywhere in the repository -- I dont see any 
tags at all tere.

> +    (inputs (list bqn-bytecode-sources libffi singeli-bootstrap))))
For cross-compilation, I would have expected sengili-bootstrap in 
native-inputs, not inputs, assuming that it is used as a compiler. Does 
cross-compilation (with --target) work?

Greetings,
Maxime.