Re: Add guile-minikanren

[Ludovic Courtès]

"Thompson, David" <address@hidden> skribis:

> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Andreas Enge <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:15:27AM -0500, Christopher Allan Webber wrote:
>>
>>> I named it guile-minikanren which isn't really accurate.  I'm not sure
>>> how else I could name it though?  I'd be open to suggestions!
>>
>> There is a chapter in the documentation about this:
>>    https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/manual/guix.html#Package-Naming
>> The main idea is to not think too much, but to simply use the upstream
>> project name. Here this seems to be "minikanren" without "guile-".
>> We have special rules for perl and python; maybe we also need a special
>> rule for guile?
>
> The prefix "guile-" is important here because the build system
> installs the Scheme modules into a directory that is specifically for
> Guile, not other R6RS compliant Scheme implementations.

I agree with you an Taylan; “guile-minikanren” sounds right here.

>>> +    (source (origin
>>> +              (method git-fetch)
>>> +              (uri (git-reference
>>> +                    (url "https://github.com/ijp/minikanren.git";)
>>> +                    (commit "10d507785eab30b0f8b47bf8bb37d880731fc031")))
>>
>> Is there no tarball? If possiblem we would prefer this.
>
> No tarball.  I would recommend that the first 7 characters of the
> commit SHA be used as the package version, and this string here could
> just be replaced with 'version'.

Maybe make the version (string-append "0-" commit) so we can eventually
increment that zero to make upgrades work, as Andreas notes?
(I think upstream minikanren is frozen anyway.)

>>> +    (native-inputs `(("guile" ,guile-2.0)))
>>
>> "native-inputs" are used during the build of the package, which is not
>> the case here. Is guile needed at all as an input?
>
> It will be needed.  The build system should compile the Scheme files,
> but it doesn't.

Even when it does this won’t be needed: there’s implicitly a Guile
running the build script already.  :-)

> As a final note, I would like to add that the 'license' field can be
> simply 'expat', instead of using the 'non-copyleft' procedure.

+1

Chris, could you post an updated patch taking into account alllll these
comments?  :-)

I hope the thorough review did not drive you away already.  ;-)
At any rate, welcome, and thanks for helping out!

Ludo’.