From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cyril Roelandt Subject: Re: Agreeing on some "rules" for packaging. Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 20:32:28 +0200 Message-ID: <521E423C.7010107@gmail.com> References: <521D1E38.9090604@gmail.com> <87sixuc71q.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38691) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VEkrg-0000BI-57 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:53:17 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VEkrY-0000KQ-Rp for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:53:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87sixuc71q.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: 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-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: =?UTF-8?B?THVkb3ZpYyBDb3VydMOocw==?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On 08/28/2013 02:51 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Cyril Roelandt skribis: > >> At the GHM, a Fedora hacker (whose name I forgot) suggested that it >> might be time for us to write down some "rules" as to how packaging >> should be done. > > Sounds like a good idea. In general, when working in a group, I think > it’s better to discuss what our expectations are, and write as much of > it down, to avoid any misunderstandings or frustration. So yes, let’s > do it. > >> For instance, Andreas suggested that patches should only be used if we >> think they might be applied upstream, thus keeping the patches/ >> directory as small as possible; > > Agreed. Also, patches should start with a comment saying what they do, > and possibly what their upstream status is (submitted, will never be > submitted because it’s Guix-specific, etc.); perhaps the format of that > comment could even be formalized. > >> modifications specific to Guix should be written in Scheme. > > Sometimes that may be hard or inconvenient though, so I would not set > that in stone. > Yes, I wrote a patch that just added "#if 0 ... #endif" around a test, and that'd be harder to do in Scheme. >> I would also like to define a standard way to order the "#:use-module" >> at the beginning of each file, and agree on other "cosmetic" rules. > > Not convinced about the ordering. ;-) > Isn't there such a convention in Scheme ? I'm often confused when looking at the beginning of a Scheme file. NetBSD has such rules for its includes (http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/share/misc/style?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup). >> What do you think ? > > These are good examples of the kind of rules we may want to discuss and > adopt. I'm also wondering how to name python packages. foo ? python-foo and python3-foo ? python2-foo and python-foo ? Cyril.