Re: [PATCH] Add nvi

[Ludovic Courtès]

Marek Benc <address@hidden> skribis:

> On 09/02/2014 10:19 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:

[...]

>> Shouldn’t it be
>> https://sites.google.com/a/bostic.com/keithbostic/files/... ?  (This is
>> the URL given on the home page.)
> Actually, no. The actual home page, according to Debain, is
> http://www.kotnet.org/~skimo/nvi/ ; However, that site is dead. I've
> looked at what other distributions report and they say
> https://sites.google.com/a/bostic.com/keithbostic/vi is currently the
> home of nvi. Unfortunately, they don't provide the latest version of
> the editor (there's even a bug in the build system of that version),
> so I had to look somewhere else to get the newest one, which I found
> at Slackbuilds and some other places, like the Debian source
> repository.

In that case please leave the sites.google.com home page, with a comment
above the source URL stating that sites.google.com is stale etc.

> I think I'll remove the website from the definition, as it'll cause
> confusion (It confused even me).
>>> +    (license bsd-3)))
>> This is actually bsd-4 (see its ‘LICENSE’ file: it has the four clauses,
>> as shown at <http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:BSD_4Clause>.)
> Really? I see there only 3 clauses, here's a listing of the LICENSE file:

I was looking at nvi-1.79/LICENSE and nvi-1.79/regex/COPYRIGHT, which
both contain the 4-clause text.  It’s surprising that the newer version
no longer has the fourth clause.

Which version do Trisquel or Debian ship?  What does their ‘copyright’
file says?

> Okay, now that that's out of the way, here's the updated patch:
>
> 2014-09-02  Marek Benc  <address@hidden>

For the subject line, use “gnu: Add nvi.”

> * gnu/packages/nvi.scm: Add the nvi editor.
> * gnu/packages/patches/nvi-assume-preserve-path.patch: Assume nvi can
> store backups in /var/tmp.

In both cases, “New file.” is enough (try ‘git log’ to see examples.)

The files also need to be added to gnu-system.am.

Could you send the patch (with the added comments) as an attachment,
because the mail client apparently mangled it?

Thanks,
Ludo’.