Hi Ludovic,

ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> After a quick glance over the differences, it’s not clear to me what
> should be done.  Often, descriptions in GSRC are shorter that what we
> have.  Sometimes they’re the same, or stripped version of those we have.
> Sometimes they paraphrase those we have.
>
> Descriptions in Guix are typically taken from the upstream web page or
> README file, so I would intuitively feel like the upstream description
> better characterizes the package.

Just a quick response to this.  When I was writing the descriptions for
GSRC, I wasn't sure whether I could copy descriptions wholesale from the
project websites due to copyright claims.  I doubt that anyone would get
upset but I was just playing it safe.  For example, they take a similar
precaution with the free software directory on fsf.org.  So, that's the
reason most of them are paraphrased.

Anyway, I'm happy to sync in the other direction and pull some
descriptions from Guix into GSRC. 

Perhaps it would be best to keep all canonical package descriptions,
short and long, in a single file under revision control somewhere, such
as in womb.  They would then be available for anyone who needs them,
should any need arise in the future and it would be easier for all
involved to stay in sync.  What do you think?

-brandon