Re: [PATCH 2] gnunet: description (was Re: [PATCH] gnunet.scm -> various changes (description update, adds gnunet-svn, gnunet-gtk-svn, gnurl))

[Ludovic Courtès]

Nils Gillmann <address@hidden> skribis:

> 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.

Do what you want. ;-)  My point is just that the description that appears
in Guix must be the canonical GNU description, i.e., the one returned by
‘guix lint’.

>> 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

Sorry, I had overlooked that “-svn” is already there.  Perfect!

Thank you,
Ludo’, who must be tired.