[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Texlive
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: Texlive |
Date: |
Tue, 05 Feb 2013 22:03:29 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.130005 (Ma Gnus v0.5) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) |
Andreas Enge <address@hidden> skribis:
> Am Sonntag, 3. Februar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
[...]
>> Yes, or we could just export the ‘license’ constructor from (guix
>> licenses). That would allow us to make a custom <license> objects when
>> needed, like here.
>
> Or we could leave it empty in some way; just call it "free"? It is clear
> that we will only package free software; so a license field that can only
> state "a collection of free licenses, for details, see the source" conveys
> really no information at all. So I do not see what to construct here. My
> suggestion:
>
> (define fsf
> (license "fsf"
> "http://www.gnu.org/licenses/"
> "A collection of free licenses according to the FSF, see the
> source for details."))
Well, for licenses that we fail to classify, I think we should at least
provide a URL or file name to look at, along with an indication of
whether it’s copyleft.
Similar to ‘bsd-style’, what about adding:
(define (copyleft url #:optional (comment "")) ...)
(define (fsf-free url #:optional (comment "")) ...)
For TeX Live, we’d use
(fsf-free "http://tug.org/texlive/copying.html")
WDYT?
>> > (define-public texlive
>> >
>> > (package
>> >
>> > (name "texlive")
>> > (version "2012")
>> Should be 20120701 no?
>
> There is one edition per year, commonly refered to as "TeX Live 20YY"; so
> there is no reason to go into more datails.
OK (I was wondering because the tarball name contains additional digits.)
Thanks,
Ludo’.