Re: [PATCH 1/2] gnu: Add edi.

[Eric Bavier]

On Thu,  8 Sep 2016 13:44:38 +0300
Efraim Flashner <address@hidden> wrote:

> * gnu/packages/enlightenment.scm (edi): New variable.
> ---
>  gnu/packages/enlightenment.scm | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/gnu/packages/enlightenment.scm b/gnu/packages/enlightenment.scm
> index 7cd11b5..a0c5a83 100644
> --- a/gnu/packages/enlightenment.scm
> +++ b/gnu/packages/enlightenment.scm
> @@ -275,3 +275,29 @@ Libraries stack (eo, evas, ecore, edje, emotion, ethumb 
> and elementary).")
>  
>  (define-public python2-efl
>    (package-with-python2 python-efl))
> +
> +(define-public edi
> +  (package
> +    (name "edi")
> +    (version "0.4.0")
> +    (source
> +      (origin
> +        (method url-fetch)
> +        (uri (list
> +               (string-append 
> "https://download.enlightenment.org/rel/apps/edi";
> +                              "/edi-" version ".tar.bz2")
> +               (string-append "https://github.com/ajwillia-ms/edi/releases/";
> +                              "download/v" version "/edi-" version 
> ".tar.bz2")))
> +        (sha256
> +         (base32
> +          "02d8hplcviayri8fxws56n362k6zqsf62v8pbn5sbgwrmkqwybhc"))))
> +    (build-system gnu-build-system)
> +    (native-inputs `(("pkg-config" ,pkg-config)))
> +    (inputs `(("efl" ,efl)))

Apparently EDI can use libclang for syntax highlighting.  Would that be
useful enough to add clang as an input?

> +    (home-page "https://www.enlightenment.org/about-edi";)
> +    (synopsis "Development environment using the EFL")

I think its best (and the guix manual suggests) to avoid acronyms in
the package synopsis.  Maybe: "Development environment for
Enlightenment"?

> +    (description "EDI is a development environment designed for and built 
> using
> +the EFL.  It's aim is to create a new, native development environment for 
> Linux
> +that trys to lower the barrier to getting involved in Enlightenment 
> development
        ^^^^
"tries"

> +and in creating apps based on the EFL suite.")
                   ^^^^
That word makes me cringe every time.

> +    (license license:gpl2)))

According to COPYING, the code in 'data/extra/skeleton' is
public-domain.  The other GPLv2 source doesn't appear to contain
license headers, so I think we're allowed to say gpl2+.  There's also a
COPYING.LGPL file, the header of which say it applies to "Elm_Code",
but I can't seem to find where that code lives.  And then the
edi/packaging/pkgbuild/PKGBUILD file has "license=('WTFPL')" in it.  I
haven't looked at the other enlightenment software, do they all have
license situations like this?

Could you look into it some more and get some clarification?

Thanks,
`~Eric