[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GNU Guixguix source archive branch, master, updated. v0.3-85-gda7cab

From: Ludovic Courtès
Subject: Re: GNU Guixguix source archive branch, master, updated. v0.3-85-gda7cabd
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 22:17:16 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.130007 (Ma Gnus v0.7) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)

Andreas Enge <address@hidden> skribis:

> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:17:18PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> I’d prefer discussing non-trivial doc changes on the list.
> I considered them trivial, since the information has not been altered,
> just slightly reorganised.

In a way, yes it’s trivial.  OTOH, organizing a manual so that it all
fits together can be non-trivial.  So no worries here, though I prefer
if we follow the rules under ‘Commit Access’ in HACKING when in doubt.

>> Regarding the patch: I think the duplicate copyright notice is needed so
>> that it appears in the Info output.  Could you check that?
> Indeed, so I should add it again.
>> About the structure: I thought an “Adding New Packages” section that
>> would include both the licensing requirements and technical advice made
>> sense, on the grounds that contributors-to-be need to see all of that.
>> Rules as suggested by Cyril could go under “Adding New Packages” (and
>> not “Packaging Guidelines”, as I initially wrote), in appropriate
>> sub-sections.
> I find the title "Packaging Guidelines" snappier. And before, there was
> a subsection "Packaging Guidelines" inside the section "Adding New Packages",
> so we would have ended up with subsubsections containing the different
> items. Now it is one level flatter. And still everything that was in
> "6.3 Adding New Packages" is in "6.3 Packaging Guidelines", so not much
> changed really. The license requirements are in "6.3.1 Software Freedom",
> the technical points should become 6.3.2 and so on.

OK, I see.

I just checked the current “Packaging Guidelines” section, and I feel
things aren’t completely in place:

The first paragraph (“The GNU distribution is nascent”...) is OK as an
intro, but the following paragraphs (about writing package definitions,
using ‘guix build’, etc.) now seem in the wrong place, since it does not
look like a guideline.

Not sure what to do, though.

Ideas?  :-)


reply via email to

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