From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add stress-make.
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2016 21:59:16 -0400
Message-ID: <20160807015916.GB5374@jasmine>
References: <9afd224fbac5196b7606f4539231ccdd@openmailbox.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44389)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <leo@famulari.name>) id 1bWDNL-0008IO-7i
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Aug 2016 21:59:40 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <leo@famulari.name>) id 1bWDND-0003xm-Ux
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Aug 2016 21:59:37 -0400
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:45528)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <leo@famulari.name>) id 1bWDNB-0003vT-Im
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Aug 2016 21:59:31 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9afd224fbac5196b7606f4539231ccdd@openmailbox.org>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Eric Bavier <ericbavier@openmailbox.org>
Cc: Guix-devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>

On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 11:53:33AM -0500, Eric Bavier wrote:
> Hello Guix,
> 
> I'm mostly looking for a second-opinion on the license of this package.
> Other comments welcome too, of course.
> 
> * gnu/packages/debug.scm (stress-make): New variable.

> +      (version (string-append "1.0-" revision "." (string-take commit 7)))

It appears they never made a release, so I think we should use "0.0.0"
instead of "1.0".

> +         (uri (git-reference
> +               (url "git://github.com/losalamos/stress-make.git")

I think it's better to use the HTTPS protocol instead of the Git
protocol, unless there is some reason not to. What do you think?

https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-on-the-Server-The-Protocols#The-Git-Protocol

> +      (inputs
> +       `(("make-src" ,(package-source gnu-make))))

How about "make-source", since we seem to shun abbreviations?

> +      (arguments
> +       ;; stress-make's configure script insists on having a tarball and does
> +       ;; not accept a directory name instead.  To let the gnu-build-system's
> +       ;; patch-* phases work properly, we unpack the source first, then
> +       ;; repack before the configure phase.

o_O

> +      ;; stress-make wrapper is under BSD-3-modifications-must-be-indicated,
> +      ;; and patched GNU Make is under its own license.
> +      (license (list bsd-3 (package-license gnu-make))))))

Perhaps we should call it non-copyleft instead of bsd-3?