[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[bug#56989] [PATCH v3] gnu: Add dbqn.
[bug#56989] [PATCH v3] gnu: Add dbqn.
Mon, 8 Aug 2022 11:19:34 +0200
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.11.0
On 06-08-2022 04:20, Christopher Rodriguez wrote:
+(define-module (gnu packages bqn)
Copyright and license headers are missing. Also, usually we don't do
per-package modules but rather thematic modules, though that's not a
hard rule especially if there are technical problems with that.
+ #:use-module ((guix licenses) #:prefix license:)
+ #:use-module (guix gexp)
+ #:use-module (guix packages)
+ #:use-module (guix download)
+ #:use-module (guix git-download)
+ #:use-module (guix build-system copy)
+ #:use-module (guix build-system gnu)
+ #:use-module (guix utils)
+ #:use-module (guix deprecation)
I don't think you are using (guix deprecation) below?
+ #:use-module (gnu packages)
+ #:use-module (gnu packages libffi)
+ #:use-module (gnu packages base)
+ #:use-module (gnu packages pkg-config)
+ #:use-module (gnu packages llvm)
+ #:use-module (gnu packages java)
+ #:use-module (gnu packages compression))
+ (let ((commit "0bbe096fc07d278b679a8479318f1722d096a03e")
+ (revision "1"))
+ (name "dbqn")
+ (version (git-version "0.2.1" revision commit))
+ (source (origin
+ (method git-fetch)
+ (uri (git-reference
+ (commit commit)))
+ (file-name (git-file-name name version))
I have looked at the 'v0.2.1' tag, and it points at the 0bbe096...
commit, so you are actually packaging version 0.2.1, not some git commit
after v0.2.1. As such, no need for (git-version ...), you can just write
"0.2.1" there. Then 'revision' becomes unused and can be dropped, and
'commit' is only used in a single place anymore so it can be inlined.
+ (native-inputs (list `(,icedtea-8 "jdk") coreutils zip))
coreutils is an implicit (native-)input, likely no need to to mention it.
Also, the Makefile mentions that the executable to start things has
#!/bin/bash -- to properly patch is when cross-compiling, you need
'bash-minimal' or 'bash' in inputs, otherwise it will be patched for the
Also, that script runs 'java' -- make sure it is patched too such that
java will actually be found -- and to patch it, you need to have
icedtea:out or openjdk:out in 'inputs'.
+ (outputs '("out"))
That's the default, no need to set it.
+ (list #:imported-modules `(,@%gnu-build-system-modules (guix build
For formatting, (guix build syscalls) should be on a separate line.
The synopsis and description are identical, and this doesn't explain
much to people who don't know what 'BQN' is. Can it be rewritten such
that people not familiar with BQN can decide whether this ‘BQN’ is
something that's useful for them? '(guix)Synopses and Descriptions' has
+ (synopsis "BQN implementation based on dzaima/APL")
+ (description "BQN implementation based on dzaima/APL.")
+ (lambda* (:#key tests?
Why the : before #:key? Also, no need to break it in separate lines.
'output's is a list of strings, now you are giving reorder-jar-content a
list of lists of strings
However, looking at (guix build ant-build-system), it looks like it just
wants a list of strings.
+ (add-after 'install 'reorder-jar-content
+ (lambda* (#:key outputs #:allow-other-keys)
+ (apply (assoc-ref ant:%standard-phases
+ #:outputs (list outputs))))
As such, maybe it should be:
(add-after 'install 'reorder-jar-content
(assoc-ref ant:%standard-phases 'reorder-jar-content))
? (untested) Possibly likewise for the other phases.
You are writing license:expat in the 'license' field, not
license:gplN/license:gplN+. Is it Expat or is it GPL?
(the implementation is even under single-license GPL!) [...]
If they are just sources, you can do (define bqn-bytecode-sources
+ (synopsis "Official BQN sources in BQN")
The 'LICENSE' file says something different. I don't think that's the
home page, maybe <https://mlochbaum.github.io/BQN/> instead?
+ (license license:gpl3))))
+ (chmod "BQN" 493)
Hexadecimal would be clearer.
expected -> standard (what's 'expected' depends on the user, they might
want a different implementation), unless it's not the standard
+ "The expected implementation for the BQN language,
+according to the official documentation of that specification.")
'documentation of that specification' -> 'the specification (pleonasm)
And maybe remove 'official', given the absence of 'official' in the
descriptions of, say, guile, gcc, openjdk and java, this sounds
marketing and unfair to me.
I'm not seeing a '0' tag anywhere in the repository -- I dont see any
tags at all tere.
+ (let* ((tag "0")
+ (revision "1")
+ (commit "fd17b144483549dbd2bcf23e3a37a09219171a99")
+ (hash "1rr4l7ijzcg25n2igi1mzya6qllh5wsrf3m5i429rlgwv1fwvfji")
+ (version (git-version tag revision commit)))
For cross-compilation, I would have expected sengili-bootstrap in
native-inputs, not inputs, assuming that it is used as a compiler. Does
cross-compilation (with --target) work?
+ (inputs (list bqn-bytecode-sources libffi singeli-bootstrap))))
Description: OpenPGP public key
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[bug#56989] [PATCH v3] gnu: Add dbqn., Christopher Rodriguez, 2022/08/05
[bug#56989] [PATCH v2] gnu: bqn: Add bqn.scm and dbqn package., Christopher Rodriguez, 2022/08/07
[bug#56989] [PATCH v1 1/5] gnu: bqn: Add bqn.scm and dbqn package., Maxime Devos, 2022/08/08
[bug#56989] [PATCH v4] gnu: Add dbqn., Christopher Rodriguez, 2022/08/08
[bug#56989] [PATCH v5 1/5] gnu: Add dbqn package., Christopher Rodriguez, 2022/08/10
- [bug#56989] [PATCH v2] gnu: bqn: Add bqn.scm and dbqn package., (continued)