|Subject:||Re: Agreeing on some "rules" for packaging.|
|Date:||Wed, 28 Aug 2013 20:32:28 +0200|
|User-agent:||Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130518 Icedove/17.0.5|
On 08/28/2013 02:51 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Cyril Roelandt <address@hidden> skribis:At the GHM, a Fedora hacker (whose name I forgot) suggested that it might be time for us to write down some "rules" as to how packaging should be done.Sounds like a good idea. In general, when working in a group, I think it’s better to discuss what our expectations are, and write as much of it down, to avoid any misunderstandings or frustration. So yes, let’s do it.For instance, Andreas suggested that patches should only be used if we think they might be applied upstream, thus keeping the patches/ directory as small as possible;Agreed. Also, patches should start with a comment saying what they do, and possibly what their upstream status is (submitted, will never be submitted because it’s Guix-specific, etc.); perhaps the format of that comment could even be formalized.modifications specific to Guix should be written in Scheme.Sometimes that may be hard or inconvenient though, so I would not set that in stone.
Yes, I wrote a patch that just added "#if 0 ... #endif" around a test, and that'd be harder to do in Scheme.
I would also like to define a standard way to order the "#:use-module" at the beginning of each file, and agree on other "cosmetic" rules.Not convinced about the ordering. ;-)
Isn't there such a convention in Scheme ? I'm often confused when looking at the beginning of a Scheme file. NetBSD has such rules for its includes (http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/share/misc/style?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup).
What do you think ?These are good examples of the kind of rules we may want to discuss and adopt.
I'm also wondering how to name python packages. foo ? python-foo and python3-foo ? python2-foo and python-foo ?
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|