[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#40815: closed (gnu: Add metamath)

From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: bug#40815: closed (gnu: Add metamath)
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2020 11:03:01 +0000

Your message dated Wed, 01 Jul 2020 13:02:37 +0200
with message-id <87a70jfqgi.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
and subject line Re: [bug#40815] gnu: Add metamath
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #40815,
regarding gnu: Add metamath
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact

40815: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=40815
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: gnu: Add metamath Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 20:48:30 +0900 User-agent: mblaze/0.5.1
This is my first packaging attempt, so careful critiques are very welcome.

The package definition itself is pretty bog standard, apart from how the "doc" 
output is supplied. Upstream provides the official documentation as a pdf 
offered separately from the source. I decided to include this as an input and 
manually copy it over. Upstream does also have a repo with the TeX sources. 
Would it be better to typset it directly instead?

Also, regarding my `install-doc' phase, is the way I copy over the 
/gnu/store/<hash>-metamath.pdf file reasonable? Unfortunately, `install-file' 
doesn't allow renaming the destination, so I had to mimic its effect. Is there 
a better, or more idiomatic way to do this kind of thing?

Anyway, cheers and guix!

Attachment: 0001-gnu-Add-metamath.patch
Description: Text Data

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: [bug#40815] gnu: Add metamath Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2020 13:02:37 +0200 User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux)

elaexuotee@wilsonb.com writes:

> I trust your initial impression on this one. Let's use the patch from my
> previous email that excises the commented out code. Does it look
> reasonable?

Certainly. I removed the book-revision and book-version bindings, since
they were not used in the current package definition, tweaked a bit the
description, and applied your patch.

I hope we can have the book either as a doc output, or as a separate
package, bundled at some point. Meanwhile, I'm closing this bug report.

Nicolas Goaziou

--- End Message ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]