From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: GNU Guixguix source archive branch, master, updated. v0.3-85-gda7cabd Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 22:17:16 +0200 Message-ID: <87a9k08d6b.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87d2ox7bxd.fsf@gnu.org> <20130828215228.GA27907@debian> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34650) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VF8jd-0004Bu-5i for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:22:35 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VF8jW-0004P8-MG for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:22:29 -0400 Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([141.255.128.1]:53920) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VF8jW-0004P4-GH for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:22:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20130828215228.GA27907@debian> (Andreas Enge's message of "Wed, 28 Aug 2013 23:52:28 +0200") 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: Andreas Enge Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Andreas Enge skribis: > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:17:18PM +0200, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >> I=E2=80=99d prefer discussing non-trivial doc changes on the list. > > I considered them trivial, since the information has not been altered, > just slightly reorganised. In a way, yes it=E2=80=99s trivial. OTOH, organizing a manual so that it a= ll fits together can be non-trivial. So no worries here, though I prefer if we follow the rules under =E2=80=98Commit Access=E2=80=99 in HACKING whe= n in doubt. >> Regarding the patch: I think the duplicate copyright notice is needed so >> that it appears in the Info output. Could you check that? > > Indeed, so I should add it again. > >> About the structure: I thought an =E2=80=9CAdding New Packages=E2=80=9D = section that >> would include both the licensing requirements and technical advice made >> sense, on the grounds that contributors-to-be need to see all of that. >>=20 >> Rules as suggested by Cyril could go under =E2=80=9CAdding New Packages= =E2=80=9D (and >> not =E2=80=9CPackaging Guidelines=E2=80=9D, as I initially wrote), in ap= propriate >> sub-sections. > > I find the title "Packaging Guidelines" snappier. And before, there was > a subsection "Packaging Guidelines" inside the section "Adding New Packag= es", > so we would have ended up with subsubsections containing the different > items. Now it is one level flatter. And still everything that was in > "6.3 Adding New Packages" is in "6.3 Packaging Guidelines", so not much > changed really. The license requirements are in "6.3.1 Software Freedom", > the technical points should become 6.3.2 and so on. OK, I see. I just checked the current =E2=80=9CPackaging Guidelines=E2=80=9D section, = and I feel things aren=E2=80=99t completely in place: The first paragraph (=E2=80=9CThe GNU distribution is nascent=E2=80=9D...) = is OK as an intro, but the following paragraphs (about writing package definitions, using =E2=80=98guix build=E2=80=99, etc.) now seem in the wrong place, sinc= e it does not look like a guideline. Not sure what to do, though. Ideas? :-) Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.