Re: [PATCH 2] gnunet: description (was Re: [PATCH] gnunet.scm -> various changes (description update, adds gnunet-svn, gnunet-gtk-svn, gnurl))

[Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3508 bytes --]

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 01:02:51AM +0200, Nils Gillmann wrote:
> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> 
> > Nils Gillmann <niasterisk@grrlz.net> skribis:
> >
> >> Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> writes:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >>>> +   (description "GNUnet is a framework for secure, distributed, peer-to-peer
> >>>> +networking.  The high-level goal is to provide a strong foundation of free
> >>>> +software for a global, distributed network which provides security and
> >>>> +privacy.  GNUnet in that sense aims to replace the current internet protocol
> >>>> +stack.  Along with an application for secure publication of files, it has
> >>>> +grown to include all kinds of basic applications for the foundation of a GNU
> >>>> +internet.
> >>>> +
> >>>> +gnunet-0.10.1 is the last stable release candidate, however for
> >>>> +development purposes and keeping up with latest changes, the SVN version
> >>>> +might be preferable until a new version is released.")
> >>>
> >>> Do we have a consensus on how to handle this sort of "Guix metadata"?
> >>
> >> Which metadata do you refer to here?
> >>
> >> The description is good with the GNUnet project, talked about it
> >> with others involved in GNUnet.
> >
> > It’s not that simple.  ;-)
> >
> > Descriptions for GNU packages are maintained in a canonical place
> > outside of Guix (they’re also use for other purposes, such as gnu.org),
> > and we synchronize from them.  ‘guix lint -c gnu-description’ reports
> > differences with said database.
> 
> I have write access in gnunet.org and only need to find some
> minutes of focus and concentration to change the description on
> the frontpage. But I guess again that is is not that simple
> either for Guix?
> 
> >
> > Thus, in general, we should keep the canonical synopsis/description for
> > GNU packages, and email bug-womb@gnu.org if we think a
> > synopsis/description must be changed.
> 
> As far as I understand Christian, he's good with any better
> description which does not do total damage to the project.
> I got input on the description I added here from most of the
> people involved in SecuShare, another project I am involved in
> which is part of GNUnet, and it was okay for them.
> 
> > Another comment: should we call this package “gnunet-next”, like we did
> > for “guile-next”?  This would make it clear that it’s a development
> > snapshot.  (Sorry for not coming up with that idea earlier.)
> 
> I am used to -git, -svn, -vcs naming but I am not fixed to it. I
> can rename the two packages to -next, but it might give the
> impression of a different software if the added description is
> not included.
> 
> Compare the opinion of someone who has never touched gnunet about
> "gnunet and gnunet-svn" vs "gnunet and gnunet-next".
> 

As someone who has never gotten past installing and uninstalling gnunet,
gnunet-svn sounds like a development branch and gnunet-next sounds like
it's almost ready. Other than having read this thread I would choose
gnunet-next > gnunet > gnunet-svn

> On the other hand it can just as well mark the next version... So
> I guess it is okay to name it gnunet-next, gnunet-gtk-next
> 
> > WDYT?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ludo’.
> >
> >
> 

-- 
Efraim Flashner   <efraim@flashner.co.il>   אפרים פלשנר
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]