[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Packaging Inferno

From: Ludovic Courtès
Subject: Re: Packaging Inferno
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2018 15:00:10 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)

Hello Diego,

Diego Nicola Barbato <address@hidden> skribis:

> I have written a package definition for Inferno and I would like to know
> if it would make sense to add it to Guix.  I am asking because I am not
> sure if it is compatible with the FSDG (bundled fonts, trademarks, ...)
> and if it would be of any use to anyone.

Removing the proprietary(?) fonts like you did sounds like the right
thing to do.  As for trademarks, please see
to determine whether there’s a problem at all.

Could you also check whether all the code is GPLv2+ like the ‘license’
field suggests?

Do I get it right that the build result is a script that launches
Inferno as a GNU/Linux process?  It seems like it could be useful.

Some comments about the package definition:

>     (build-system trivial-build-system)
>     (native-inputs `(("bash" ,bash)
>                      ("coreutils" ,coreutils)
>                      ("grep" ,grep)
>                      ("sed" ,sed)
>                      ("awk" ,gawk)
>                      ("xz" ,xz)
>                      ("tar" ,tar)
>                      ("gcc-toolchain" ,gcc-toolchain)                     ))
>     (inputs `(("libx11" ,libx11)
>               ("xorgproto" ,xorgproto)
>               ("libxext" ,libxext)))

Like Efraim wrote, I think using ‘gnu-build-system’ would allow you to
simplify the package definition.

>              ;; build mk
>              (invoke "./")

It would be ideal if we had a separate package for ‘mk’ (I suppose it
can run on POSIX systems, right?).

Once you’ve double-checked the licensing and trademark situation, I
think you can go ahead and submit it as a patch (or two patches, with
‘mk’ separately).



reply via email to

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