[PATCH] gnu: Add psutils.

[PATCH] gnu: Add psutils.

[Andreas Enge]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 297 bytes --]

The attached patch adds psutils. Its license is homebrewed:
   http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/p/psutils/current/copyright
Does it qualify as "bsd-like"? If not, would it make sense to add a license 
"other" to licenses.scm, which takes the same parameters as "bsd-like"?

Andreas

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1529 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: 0001-gnu-Add-psutils.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 2510 bytes --]

From 2ed9a3862d3f120986ed40863a26a88c64f5ded7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:26:11 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add psutils.

* gnu/packages/ghostscript.scm (psutils): New variable.
---
 gnu/packages/ghostscript.scm |   42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+)

diff --git a/gnu/packages/ghostscript.scm b/gnu/packages/ghostscript.scm
index a375675..a2ca108 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/ghostscript.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/ghostscript.scm
@@ -75,6 +75,48 @@ paper size.")
    (license license:gpl2)
    (home-page "http://packages.qa.debian.org/libp/libpaper.html")))
 
+(define-public psutils
+  (package
+   (name "psutils")
+   (version "17")
+   (source (origin
+            (method url-fetch)
+            (uri "ftp://ftp.knackered.org/pub/psutils/psutils.tar.gz")
+            (sha256 (base32
+                     "1r4ab1fvgganm02kmm70b2r1azwzbav2am41gbigpa2bb1wynlrq"))))
+   (build-system gnu-build-system)
+   (inputs `(("perl" ,perl)))
+   (arguments
+    `(#:tests? #f ; none provided
+      #:phases
+      (alist-replace
+       'configure
+       (lambda* (#:key inputs outputs #:allow-other-keys #:rest args)
+        (let ((perl (assoc-ref inputs "perl"))
+              (out (assoc-ref outputs "out")))
+         (copy-file "Makefile.unix" "Makefile")
+         (substitute* "Makefile"
+             (("/usr/local/bin/perl") (string-append perl "/bin/perl")))
+         (substitute* "Makefile"
+             (("/usr/local") out))
+         (substitute* "Makefile"
+             (("-mkdir") "mkdir -p"))
+              ;; for the install phase
+         (substitute* "Makefile"
+             ((" install.include") ""))
+              ;; drop installation of non-free files
+         ))
+      %standard-phases)))
+   (synopsis "psutils, a collection of utilities for manipulating PostScript documents")
+   (description
+    "PSUtils is a collection of utilities for manipulating PostScript
+documents. Programs included are psnup, for placing out several logical pages
+on a single sheet of paper, psselect, for selecting pages from a document,
+pstops, for general imposition, psbook, for signature generation for booklet
+printing, and psresize, for adjusting page sizes.")
+   (license "other")
+   (home-page "http://knackered.org/angus/psutils/")))
+
 (define-public ghostscript
   (package
    (name "ghostscript")
-- 
1.7.10.4

Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add psutils.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi!

Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> skribis:

> The attached patch adds psutils. Its license is homebrewed:
>    http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/p/psutils/current/copyright
> Does it qualify as "bsd-like"?

It looks like BSD-3 to me, or at least “BSD-like”.

> If not, would it make sense to add a license "other" to licenses.scm,
> which takes the same parameters as "bsd-like"?

I think (guix licenses) should export the constructor, but under the
name ‘make-license’ to avoid clashes with the ‘license’ field in
‘package’ records.

> +         (substitute* "Makefile"
> +             (("/usr/local/bin/perl") (string-append perl "/bin/perl")))

Please align the opening paren under the ‘u’.  (Perhaps your editor can
be tought to always do that?)

> +         (substitute* "Makefile"
> +             ((" install.include") ""))
> +              ;; drop installation of non-free files
> +         ))

Please put the comment above the line it refers to, and move closing
parentheses to the end of the line.

Nitpickingly yours,  ;-)
Ludo’.

Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add psutils.

[Andreas Enge]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1000 bytes --]

Am Montag, 21. Januar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
> > Does it qualify as "bsd-like"?
> It looks like BSD-3 to me, or at least “BSD-like”.

Sort of. Except that the second clause states that source code needs to be 
provided, whereas BSD just states that binary distributions need to keep 
the copyright notice.

I could also add an entry to the licenses file, but I am afraid we might 
end up with almost as many licenses as packages.

> > If not, would it make sense to add a license "other" to licenses.scm,
> > which takes the same parameters as "bsd-like"?
> I think (guix licenses) should export the constructor, but under the
> name ‘make-license’ to avoid clashes with the ‘license’ field in
> ‘package’ records.

Is this not exactly how bsd-style operates?

> Please align the opening paren under the ‘u’.
> Please put the comment above the line it refers to, and move closing
> parentheses to the end of the line.

Okay, no problem.

Andreas

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4892 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add psutils.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> skribis:

> Am Montag, 21. Januar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
>> > Does it qualify as "bsd-like"?
>> It looks like BSD-3 to me, or at least “BSD-like”.
>
> Sort of. Except that the second clause states that source code needs to be 
> provided, whereas BSD just states that binary distributions need to keep 
> the copyright notice.

Oh, OK.

> I could also add an entry to the licenses file, but I am afraid we might 
> end up with almost as many licenses as packages.

Agreed, that’s a problem.  :-)

>> > If not, would it make sense to add a license "other" to licenses.scm,
>> > which takes the same parameters as "bsd-like"?
>> I think (guix licenses) should export the constructor, but under the
>> name ‘make-license’ to avoid clashes with the ‘license’ field in
>> ‘package’ records.
>
> Is this not exactly how bsd-style operates?

Yes, but it’s only for BSD-style licenses.

Thanks!

Ludo’.

Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add psutils.

[Andreas Enge]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 739 bytes --]

Am Montag, 21. Januar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
> Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> skribis:
> > Is this not exactly how bsd-style operates?
> Yes, but it’s only for BSD-style licenses.

Finally I think we agree. I was suggesting to create something analogous to 
bsd-style, just with a different name. But maybe bsd-style is enough, as 
the description is sufficiently vague:
"This is a BSD-style, non-copyleft free software license."

Fontconfig poses the same problem: They use something that looks 
essentially like the MIT/X11 license, but with a slightly different 
wording.

So shall we create a new category, and if yes, under which name? Or shall 
we use "bsd-style" for anything that does not fit?

Andreas

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3144 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add psutils.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> skribis:

> Am Montag, 21. Januar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
>> Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> skribis:
>> > Is this not exactly how bsd-style operates?
>> Yes, but it’s only for BSD-style licenses.
>
> Finally I think we agree.

Nitpicking is what I do on my spare time.  ;-)

> I was suggesting to create something analogous to bsd-style, just with
> a different name. But maybe bsd-style is enough, as the description is
> sufficiently vague: "This is a BSD-style, non-copyleft free software
> license."
>
> Fontconfig poses the same problem: They use something that looks 
> essentially like the MIT/X11 license, but with a slightly different 
> wording.
>
> So shall we create a new category, and if yes, under which name? Or shall 
> we use "bsd-style" for anything that does not fit?

I would say the latter, because the former is going to be an endless
endeavor.  The URL passed to ‘bsd-style’ gives more details anyway.

How does that sound?

Ludo’.