From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>
Subject: Re: Interest in package for pfff?
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2016 14:21:09 +0100
Message-ID: <87lh8886d6.fsf@elephly.net>
References: <20160101082325.GB19743@thebird.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58347)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1aFM7U-0004LI-Sd
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Jan 2016 08:21:21 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1aFM7R-0003dS-Lk
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Jan 2016 08:21:20 -0500
Received: from sender163-mail.zoho.com ([74.201.84.163]:25714)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1aFM7R-0003dN-DZ
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Jan 2016 08:21:17 -0500
In-reply-to: <20160101082325.GB19743@thebird.nl>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=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: Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12@thebird.nl>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org


Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12@thebird.nl> writes:

> I just wrote a package for pfff. Should it go into Guix, and if so,
> what module should it belong in?  md5sum and shaxsum are part of
> coreutils. I am thinking pfff should go into gnu/packages/hash.scm.

I think “hash.scm” would be a good location.

> (define-public pfff
>   (package
>     (name "pfff")
>     (version "1.0")
>     (source (origin
>               (method url-fetch)
>               (uri (string-append
>                     "https://github.com/pfff/pfff/archive/v" version ".tar.gz"))

We need “(file-name ...)” after the “(uri ...)” expression, because the
tarball is just called “v1.0.tar.gz”.

>               (sha256
>                (base32
>                 "00m553aa277iarxj6dalmklyb64r7ias49bfwzbacsfg8h3kar8m"))))
>     (build-system cmake-build-system)
>     (home-page "http://biit.cs.ut.ee/pfff/")
>     (synopsis "Probabilistic fast file fingerprinting")
>     (description
>      "Calculate a probablistic fast finger print (pfff) which
                          ^--- an “i” is missing here.

[p]robabilistic [f]ast [f]inger [f]rint –> pfff ;)

The first sentence is a sentence fragment, but we want to have full
sentences in package descriptions.  It would probably suffice to just
prepend “This package provides tools to” to the proposed description.

I’d remove the “(pfff)” because it’s actually the abbreviation for 
“probabilistic fast file fingerprinting” (as in the synopsis).

> functions as a compact digital fingerprint of a file by sampling
> randomly from the file instead of reading it in full.  Consequently,
> the computation has a flat performance characteristic, correlated with
> data variation rather than file size.")
>     (license license:bsd-3)))

Other than that it’s fine.  Could you please send a patch?  (You can use
“git format-patch -1” or similar to produce it from a commit.)

Thank you!

~~ Ricardo