From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nils Gillmann Subject: Re: [PATCH 2] gnunet: description (was Re: [PATCH] gnunet.scm -> various changes (description update, adds gnunet-svn, gnunet-gtk-svn, gnurl)) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 01:02:51 +0200 Message-ID: <87egarfu1w.fsf@grrlz.net> References: <874mcd2cl2.fsf@grrlz.net> <87wpomr4jr.fsf@grrlz.net> <20160328164646.GE8174@jasmine> <87oa9yts9p.fsf@grrlz.net> <87egar8x6n.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37036) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1alP8s-0000X8-Gl for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 19:03:15 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1alP8p-0008Uc-6N for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 19:03:14 -0400 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:45493) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1alP8p-0008UJ-04 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 19:03:11 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1alP8n-0005Bv-Dd for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 01:03:09 +0200 Received: from xd9bb90b5.dyn.telefonica.de ([217.187.144.181]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 01:03:09 +0200 Received: from niasterisk by xd9bb90b5.dyn.telefonica.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 01:03:09 +0200 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-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: guix-devel@gnu.org ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Nils Gillmann skribis: > >> Leo Famulari writes: > > [...] > >>>> + (description "GNUnet is a framework for secure, distributed, peer-to-peer >>>> +networking. The high-level goal is to provide a strong foundation of free >>>> +software for a global, distributed network which provides security and >>>> +privacy. GNUnet in that sense aims to replace the current internet protocol >>>> +stack. Along with an application for secure publication of files, it has >>>> +grown to include all kinds of basic applications for the foundation of a GNU >>>> +internet. >>>> + >>>> +gnunet-0.10.1 is the last stable release candidate, however for >>>> +development purposes and keeping up with latest changes, the SVN version >>>> +might be preferable until a new version is released.") >>> >>> Do we have a consensus on how to handle this sort of "Guix metadata"? >> >> Which metadata do you refer to here? >> >> The description is good with the GNUnet project, talked about it >> with others involved in GNUnet. > > It’s not that simple. ;-) > > Descriptions for GNU packages are maintained in a canonical place > outside of Guix (they’re also use for other purposes, such as gnu.org), > and we synchronize from them. ‘guix lint -c gnu-description’ reports > differences with said database. I have write access in gnunet.org and only need to find some minutes of focus and concentration to change the description on the frontpage. But I guess again that is is not that simple either for Guix? > > Thus, in general, we should keep the canonical synopsis/description for > GNU packages, and email bug-womb@gnu.org if we think a > synopsis/description must be changed. As far as I understand Christian, he's good with any better description which does not do total damage to the project. I got input on the description I added here from most of the people involved in SecuShare, another project I am involved in which is part of GNUnet, and it was okay for them. > Another comment: should we call this package “gnunet-next”, like we did > for “guile-next”? This would make it clear that it’s a development > snapshot. (Sorry for not coming up with that idea earlier.) I am used to -git, -svn, -vcs naming but I am not fixed to it. I can rename the two packages to -next, but it might give the impression of a different software if the added description is not included. Compare the opinion of someone who has never touched gnunet about "gnunet and gnunet-svn" vs "gnunet and gnunet-next". On the other hand it can just as well mark the next version... So I guess it is okay to name it gnunet-next, gnunet-gtk-next > WDYT? > > Thanks, > Ludo’. > > -- ng personal contact: http://krosos.sdf.org EDN: https://wiki.c3d2.de/EDN