Re: [PATCH 2] gnunet: description (was Re: [PATCH] gnunet.scm -> various changes (description update, adds gnunet-svn, gnunet-gtk-svn, gnurl))

[Nils Gillmann <niasterisk@grrlz.net>]

ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Nils Gillmann <niasterisk@grrlz.net> skribis:
>
>> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>>
>>> Nils Gillmann <niasterisk@grrlz.net> skribis:
>>>
>>>> Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> 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.
>
> Do what you want. ;-)  My point is just that the description that appears
> in Guix must be the canonical GNU description, i.e., the one returned by
> ‘guix lint’.

Okay, and this description is set outside of gnunet.org I assume.
If I propose this new description to Christian (currently it was
a number of people but I only talked to cg at the conference
where we met that I feel it needs some change etc), is that
weightful enough to change the description on gnu.org whereever
it sits?

>>> 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
>
> Sorry, I had overlooked that “-svn” is already there.  Perfect!
>
> Thank you,
> Ludo’, who must be tired.
>
>

-- 
ng
personal contact: http://krosos.sdf.org
EDN: https://wiki.c3d2.de/EDN