Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add stress-make.

[Eric Bavier]

On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 21:59:16 -0400
Leo Famulari <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 11:53:33AM -0500, Eric Bavier wrote:
> > Hello Guix,
> > 
> > I'm mostly looking for a second-opinion on the license of this package.
> > Other comments welcome too, of course.
> > 
> > * gnu/packages/debug.scm (stress-make): New variable.  
> 
> > +      (version (string-append "1.0-" revision "." (string-take commit 7))) 
> >  
> 
> It appears they never made a release, so I think we should use "0.0.0"
> instead of "1.0".

I used "1.0" because that's the version number in configure.ac.

> 
> > +         (uri (git-reference
> > +               (url "git://github.com/losalamos/stress-make.git")  
> 
> I think it's better to use the HTTPS protocol instead of the Git
> protocol, unless there is some reason not to. What do you think?
> 
> https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-on-the-Server-The-Protocols#The-Git-Protocol

OK, sounds good.

> 
> > +      (inputs
> > +       `(("make-src" ,(package-source gnu-make))))  
> 
> How about "make-source", since we seem to shun abbreviations?

Right.

> 
> > +      (arguments
> > +       ;; stress-make's configure script insists on having a tarball and 
> > does
> > +       ;; not accept a directory name instead.  To let the 
> > gnu-build-system's
> > +       ;; patch-* phases work properly, we unpack the source first, then
> > +       ;; repack before the configure phase.  
> 
> o_O

Yeah, it's a bit weird.

> 
> > +      ;; stress-make wrapper is under 
> > BSD-3-modifications-must-be-indicated,
> > +      ;; and patched GNU Make is under its own license.
> > +      (license (list bsd-3 (package-license gnu-make))))))  
> 
> Perhaps we should call it non-copyleft instead of bsd-3?

That seems more appropriate, yes.

Thanks for the review,
`~Eric