Re: [PATCH 6/6] gnu: Add postorius.

[ng0 <contact.ng0@cryptolab.net>]

Hartmut Goebel <h.goebel@crazy-compilers.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Am 30.01.2017 um 10:10 schrieb ng0:
>>
>>>> +       (file-name (string-append name "-" version ".tar.gz"))
>>> I'd keep the original name, but this may be a matter of taste.
>> The original file name has some "+something2.tar.gz" in it, I want
>> to be consistent with what we provide.
>> Or what do you mean?
>
> I suggest keeping te original filename. But I don't know the exacpt
> conventions at Guix for this.

Basically one part says: No strange characters, versions only
separated with dots, etc. Which is why I removed the
"+foo2.tar.gz".
But as you said, it's (almost) purely cosmetical.

>> Thanks, I will apply this. They should fix their pypi source (if I got
>> it from there). 
>
> ACK.
>
>>>> +    (synopsis "Web user interface for GNU Mailman")
>>> Mention "Mailman 3"?
>> We only "have" version 3, why should I mention a version then? I
>> can do it... Did Mailman prior to version 3 have different
>> frontends than version 3?
>
> Mailman 3 is a completely new product. AFAIK most part are re-developed
> from scratch. OTOH at http://list.org/ they are just mentioning
> "Mailman" and "versions are 2.1.23 … and 3.0.3 …". An at mailman-bundler
> [1] they write "This is GNU Mailman" and "This package installs GNU
> Mailman".
>
> So probably we should stay with what you did: just call ist "Mailman".
>
> [1] https://pypi.python.org/pypi/mailman-bundler/3.0.0

Thanks. I would say calling it Mailman 3 makes sense if for
example someone decides mailman-4 comes out but we need to keep
mailman-3 around. The version number found through either of
"guix package {--show,--search} $some-mailman-related package"
will be enough in my opinion.
We should definitely mention Mailman *3* in the documentation for
the service we eventually will write.

>>
>>> Please move it down to the description - I overlooked it first.
>> I assume you mean the "Web user interface for GNU Mailman 3".
>> In case I haven't mentioned it there, I will do so, okay.
>
> I meant the "synopsis" entry which I expect to be beside the description
> and not separate.

Okay, thanks.

> -- 
> Regards
> Hartmut Goebel
>
> | Hartmut Goebel          | h.goebel@crazy-compilers.com               |
> | www.crazy-compilers.com | compilers which you thought are impossible |
>

-- 
ng0 -- https://www.inventati.org/patternsinthechaos/