[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: bioinformatics.scm vs bioconductor.scm ?

From: zimoun
Subject: Re: bioinformatics.scm vs bioconductor.scm ?
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 19:36:41 +0100


Thank you for your explanations.
And sorry if I am still slow to understand.

> > What is the convention about license ?
> > (license name) or (license license:name)
> Just about this point: This is not a "convention", this is part of the
> language definition of Guile, the underlying Scheme implementation:

I understand this. :-)

> In the module gnu/packes/cran.scm (and many others too) you find:
> (define-module (gnu packages cran)
>   #:use-module ((guix licenses) #:prefix license:)
>   #:use-module (guix packages)
> [...]
> )
> That means: use everything from module "guix licenses" and prefix it
> with "license:". So, in the cran module, you must use "license:name" to
> use the publicly defined "name" from the "guix licenses" module.

Ok, but for example this convention about CRAN is not consistent with
the importer. :-)
  guix import cran corpcor -r
fills the license field with (license gpl3+) and not (license license:gpl3+)

In other words, why the cran.scm needs a prefix for the license field?

> In other packages that import "guix licenses" without the prefix, you
> use "name" directly. See gnu/packages/scsi.scm for an example.

But there is a convention or an explanation why some packages use a
prefix e.g. cran.scm and other not e.g scsi.scm?

Thank you again for your explanations.

Best regards,

reply via email to

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