From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Add bioconductor package creation tools. Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2016 19:52:04 -0400 Message-ID: <20160917235204.GA21615@jasmine> References: <87mvj9s8ac.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58604) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1blPPD-0006lq-U9 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Sep 2016 19:52:24 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1blPPA-00010I-PD for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Sep 2016 19:52:23 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87mvj9s8ac.fsf@gnu.org> 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: Roel Janssen Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:37:47PM +0200, Roel Janssen wrote: > In the following patch series I add packages to do package development > for Bioconductor. They have a couple of tools to perform extra checks > to ensure Bioconductor packages work together well. > > Since I am trying to add a package to Bioconductor, I need these > packages in GNU Guix. I've been using them for a couple of days and > it seems to work fine. The packages look straightforward to me. My only suggestion would be to change the descriptions to begin with "$package is a ..." rather than "This package ...". I think it's useful to have the package name in the description. Perhaps some of the descriptions could give more detail, but I'm not familiar with this software, so I can't say. I think that if they are working for you, you've done a license audit, and they pass `guix lint`, then they are okay.