From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add hdf4 Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 14:17:19 -0400 Message-ID: <20160523181719.GA11083@jasmine> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57106) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b4uQ7-00015E-Q3 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 23 May 2016 14:17:40 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b4uQ5-0003Gy-4u for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 23 May 2016 14:17:39 -0400 Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:34211) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b4uQ3-0003D7-Ms for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 23 May 2016 14:17:37 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Jeremy Robst Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 06:22:09PM +0100, Jeremy Robst wrote: Welcome, and thanks for the patch! Unfortunately, I can't seem to apply it to my source tree. Is anybody else able to do so? I can't figure *why* it doesn't apply. Jeremy, are you able to apply it with `patch -p1` or `git am`? > +(define-public hdf4 > + (package > + (name "hdf4") > + (version "4.2.11") > + (source + (origin + (method url-fetch) This is strange. It renders as expected once the patch is downloaded, but in Mutt, it looks like this. I wonder if this has to do with the patch not applying? > + (arguments '(#:tests? #f)) We prefer to add a comment explaining why test are disabled. If there are no tests, then the comment can be "No test suite." > + (license (license:x11-style > + "https://www.hdfgroup.org/ftp/HDF/HDF_Current/src/unpacked/COPYING")))) To me, this looks more like a variation on the BSD license than the x11 license. Perhaps non-copyleft is a more appropriate choice. Can you look at some of our packages using non-copyleft and report back? Can you look into these questions and send an updated patch?