guix-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [PATCH 2] gnunet: description (was Re: [PATCH] gnunet.scm -> various


From: Nils Gillmann
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2] gnunet: description (was Re: [PATCH] gnunet.scm -> various changes (description update, adds gnunet-svn, gnunet-gtk-svn, gnurl))
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 01:02:51 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)

address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Nils Gillmann <address@hidden> skribis:
>
>> Leo Famulari <address@hidden> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> +   (description "GNUnet is a framework for secure, distributed, 
>>>> peer-to-peer
>>>> +networking.  The high-level goal is to provide a strong foundation of free
>>>> +software for a global, distributed network which provides security and
>>>> +privacy.  GNUnet in that sense aims to replace the current internet 
>>>> protocol
>>>> +stack.  Along with an application for secure publication of files, it has
>>>> +grown to include all kinds of basic applications for the foundation of a 
>>>> GNU
>>>> +internet.
>>>> +
>>>> +gnunet-0.10.1 is the last stable release candidate, however for
>>>> +development purposes and keeping up with latest changes, the SVN version
>>>> +might be preferable until a new version is released.")
>>>
>>> Do we have a consensus on how to handle this sort of "Guix metadata"?
>>
>> Which metadata do you refer to here?
>>
>> The description is good with the GNUnet project, talked about it
>> with others involved in GNUnet.
>
> It’s not that simple.  ;-)
>
> Descriptions for GNU packages are maintained in a canonical place
> outside of Guix (they’re also use for other purposes, such as gnu.org),
> and we synchronize from them.  ‘guix lint -c gnu-description’ reports
> differences with said database.

I have write access in gnunet.org and only need to find some
minutes of focus and concentration to change the description on
the frontpage. But I guess again that is is not that simple
either for Guix?

>
> Thus, in general, we should keep the canonical synopsis/description for
> GNU packages, and email address@hidden if we think a
> synopsis/description must be changed.

As far as I understand Christian, he's good with any better
description which does not do total damage to the project.
I got input on the description I added here from most of the
people involved in SecuShare, another project I am involved in
which is part of GNUnet, and it was okay for them.

> Another comment: should we call this package “gnunet-next”, like we did
> for “guile-next”?  This would make it clear that it’s a development
> snapshot.  (Sorry for not coming up with that idea earlier.)

I am used to -git, -svn, -vcs naming but I am not fixed to it. I
can rename the two packages to -next, but it might give the
impression of a different software if the added description is
not included.

Compare the opinion of someone who has never touched gnunet about
"gnunet and gnunet-svn" vs "gnunet and gnunet-next".

On the other hand it can just as well mark the next version... So
I guess it is okay to name it gnunet-next, gnunet-gtk-next

> WDYT?
>
> Thanks,
> Ludo’.
>
>

-- 
ng
personal contact: http://krosos.sdf.org
EDN: https://wiki.c3d2.de/EDN




reply via email to

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