[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add higan.

From: Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add higan.
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 22:08:48 +0300
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)

Efraim Flashner <address@hidden> writes:

> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 06:28:59PM +0300, Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer wrote:
>> If there are no comments, I'll just push this soon, and issues can be
>> fixed later; at least it builds and runs fine. :-)
>> Taylan
>> address@hidden (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") writes:
>> > Some things to note about this package & questions:
>> >
>> > - There's no official VCS repo and the author doesn't want automated
>> >   tools to download files from his homepage; there's an unofficial git
>> >   repo at GitLab but I found it unsuitable so I'm hosting the sources
>> >   specifically for Guix at GitHub now:
>> >
> it does list and it lists
> the git repo at , which only there says
> its the unofficial one.

The author doesn't wish for build tools to download tarballs from the
site.  From a thread on the BBS forum:

| I don't want people writing build scripts that fetch the source from
| I change file names and directory structures all the time,
| and I don't want that breaking people's builds.

| I would rather distributions host their own repositories of build
| files. And for that, you're welcome to store higan in .tar.xz format
| instead of .7z format.

The linked GitLab repo could be said to be semi-official, but I noted
that it doesn't tag releases very consistently.  E.g. there's no tag for
the latest release.

>> >
>> >
>> >   Is this OK, or is there a place we can upload the original source
>> >   bundle for Guix to download from?
>> >
>> > - I forgot if there's a guideline for this: the release versions are
>> >   called 'v097', 'v098' etc. with always a 'v' in front.  Should that
>> >   'v' appear in the version field of the package or should it be
>> >   stripped?
> This one I have some insight for. Vapoursynth numbers all their versions
> R28, R29, etc. Its version is 29, with the download as `... name "-R"
> version ...'

Ah good, I'll strip the 'v' then.

>> > - As seems to be tradition among emulator developers, the build system
>> >   and the program's handling of the file system are a big pile of poo,
>> >   so:
>> >
>> >   * Is it principally OK to reuse the standard `build' and `install'
>> >     phase procedures a second time, just with the CWD changed, as I do
>> >     here?
> that should be ok

Thanks for the review. :-)


reply via email to

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