Re: [PATCH] Add libconfig.

[Roel Janssen]

0001-gnu-Add-libconfig-v2.patch
Description: Text Data

Hello Ricardo,

Thank you for your quick response.

Ricardo Wurmus writes:

> Hi Roel,
>
>> From a21ebd71a39bf5000e5809514f0e00185311795d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Roel Janssen <address@hidden>
>> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:45:47 +0100
>> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add libconfig.
>
>> * gnu/packages/libconfig.scm: New file.
>> * gnu-system.am (GNU_SYSTEM_MODULES): Add it.
>
> I have an irrational desire to group similar package expressions in
> modules rather than to add new modules.  In this case we have
> “textutils.scm” and “xml.scm” that seem related.
>
> Someone else should say whether a new module for this is better than
> grouping it with one of the above modules.  If a new module is indeed
> warranted the commit message is perfect.

Sorry about creating yet another file.  I looked at filenames to find a
place to put this in, but I hadn't looked careful enough it seems.  I
think this fits in 'textutils.scm' indeed.  The updated version of the
patch should be better.

>> +(define-public libconfig
>> +  (package
>> +    (name "libconfig")
>> +    (version "1.5")
>> +    (source (origin
>> +              (method url-fetch)
>> +              (uri (string-append
>> +                    "http://www.hyperrealm.com/libconfig/libconfig-";
>> +                    version ".tar.gz"))
>> +              (sha256
>> +               (base32
>> +                "1xh3hzk63v4y8815lc5209m3s6ms2cpgw4h5hg462i4f1lwsl7g3"))))
>> +    (build-system gnu-build-system)
>> +    (home-page "http://www.hyperrealm.com/libconfig/";)
>> +    (synopsis "C/C++ configuration file library")
>> +    (description
>> +     "Libconfig is a simple library for manipulating structured 
>> configuration
>> +files.  This file format is more compact and more readable than XML.  And
>> +unlike XML, it is type-aware, so it is not necessary to do string parsing in
>> +application code.")
>> +    (license license:lgpl2.1)))
>
> The license is actually “lgpl2.1+” because the file headers say this:
>
>     “either version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later
>     version.”

You're right. I updated the patch.

Hopefully I haven't screwed up the commit message. :)

Thanks,
Roel