[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Packaging Inferno
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: Packaging Inferno |
Date: |
Mon, 08 Oct 2018 15:00:10 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) |
Hello Diego,
Diego Nicola Barbato <address@hidden> skribis:
> I have written a package definition for Inferno and I would like to know
> if it would make sense to add it to Guix. I am asking because I am not
> sure if it is compatible with the FSDG (bundled fonts, trademarks, ...)
> and if it would be of any use to anyone.
Removing the proprietary(?) fonts like you did sounds like the right
thing to do. As for trademarks, please see
<https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#trademarks>
to determine whether there’s a problem at all.
Could you also check whether all the code is GPLv2+ like the ‘license’
field suggests?
Do I get it right that the build result is a script that launches
Inferno as a GNU/Linux process? It seems like it could be useful.
Some comments about the package definition:
> (build-system trivial-build-system)
> (native-inputs `(("bash" ,bash)
> ("coreutils" ,coreutils)
> ("grep" ,grep)
> ("sed" ,sed)
> ("awk" ,gawk)
> ("xz" ,xz)
> ("tar" ,tar)
> ("gcc-toolchain" ,gcc-toolchain) ))
> (inputs `(("libx11" ,libx11)
> ("xorgproto" ,xorgproto)
> ("libxext" ,libxext)))
Like Efraim wrote, I think using ‘gnu-build-system’ would allow you to
simplify the package definition.
> ;; build mk
> (invoke "./makemk.sh")
It would be ideal if we had a separate package for ‘mk’ (I suppose it
can run on POSIX systems, right?).
Once you’ve double-checked the licensing and trademark situation, I
think you can go ahead and submit it as a patch (or two patches, with
‘mk’ separately).
Thanks!
Ludo’.