Re: [PATCH] Add scheme-bytestructures

[Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer]

address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Hi Amirouche,
>
> Some comments to complement Kei’s.
>
> Kei Kebreau <address@hidden> skribis:
>
>> Amirouche Boubekki <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> Warning: scheme-bytestructures works on various implementation of Scheme 
>>> but this patch adds
>>> it only for guile-2.0.
>>>
>>> This is a pure scheme package there is no autotools that's why I use the 
>>> trivial-build-system.
>>>
>>> This doesn't run the test suite, yet.
>>>
>>> From fb2eb7ffd88ec4fba09411195a54b59d67d9c137 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Amirouche <address@hidden>
>>> Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 12:31:20 +0200
>>> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add scheme-bytestructures
>>>
>>> * gnu/packages/guile.scm (scheme-bytestructures): New variable.
>>>
>>> diff --git a/gnu/packages/guile.scm b/gnu/packages/guile.scm
>>> index 0890f19..383990e 100644
>>> --- a/gnu/packages/guile.scm
>>> +++ b/gnu/packages/guile.scm
>>> @@ -1265,4 +1265,105 @@ is no support for parsing block and inline level 
>>> HTML.")
>>>  (define-public guile2.2-commonmark
>>>    (package-for-guile-2.2 guile-commonmark))
>>>  
>>> +(define-public scheme-bytestructures
>>> +  (package
>>> +    (name "scheme-bytestructures")
>
> I would suggest calling it “guile-scheme-bytestructures” (or
> “guile-bytestructures”?) to distinguish this package from the same one
> built for another implementation.

FWIW, second option sounds good to me (guile-bytestructures), speaking
as bytestructures author.

>>> +    (license gpl3)))
>
> Probably ‘gpl3+’; could you check?

The intention is gpl3+ so if any file implies otherwise that's an error
on my end.  I'm pretty sure I've used standard gpl3+ boilerplate
everywhere though.

Thanks all for doing this. :-)

Taylan