From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich =?utf-8?Q?Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1?=
	=?utf-8?Q?=2FKammer?=)
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Add recode, enca.
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 22:47:07 +0100
Message-ID: <87pp8h9738.fsf@taylan.uni.cx>
References: <87bnk8e8cq.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> <20150306220358.GB32498@debian>
	<87oao3qjae.fsf@gnu.org> <87twxu8eq1.fsf@taylan.uni.cx>
	<87r3sxrkj3.fsf@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46211)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <taylanbayirli@gmail.com>) id 1YV5W5-0007Uc-Bp
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Mar 2015 17:47:14 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <taylanbayirli@gmail.com>) id 1YV5W4-0007Zl-Em
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Mar 2015 17:47:13 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87r3sxrkj3.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic
	\=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\=
	\=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Mon, 09 Mar 2015 21:19:28 +0100")
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: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes:

>> I'm not sure if the need to specify the ".libs" subdirectory is
>> Guix-specific or not.
>
> I don=E2=80=99t think so (the package uses libtool, right?)  This may be a
> genuine upstream bug, which could go unnoticed when the user happens to
> have a librecode.so in the loader=E2=80=99s search path.

OK, I left the patching in the build phase for now but filed a bug on
GitHub.

>> +    (license (list license:gpl2+ license:lgpl2.1+))))
>
> Please add a comment telling if this is an =E2=80=98or=E2=80=99 or an =E2=
=80=98and=E2=80=99.

The reason I had listed both was that some Copyright file from Debian
claims the program is under GPL and the library under LGPL, but looking
through the sources I could see no sensible separation of program and
library source files after all, and no explicit mention of what license
applies to what other than individual GPL or LGPL headers on seemingly
arbitrary .c files, so I set the license to just gpl2+ after all.

Thanks for the review!  Will push along with all the other patches. :-)

Taylan