Re: Packaging Inferno

[Nils Gillmann]

Ludovic Courtès transcribed 1.9K bytes:
> Hello Diego,
> 
> Diego Nicola Barbato <address@hidden> skribis:
> 
> > I have written a package definition for Inferno and I would like to know
> > if it would make sense to add it to Guix.  I am asking because I am not
> > sure if it is compatible with the FSDG (bundled fonts, trademarks, ...)
> > and if it would be of any use to anyone.
> 
> Removing the proprietary(?) fonts like you did sounds like the right
> thing to do.  As for trademarks, please see
> <https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#trademarks>
> to determine whether there’s a problem at all.
> 
> Could you also check whether all the code is GPLv2+ like the ‘license’
> field suggests?
> 
> Do I get it right that the build result is a script that launches
> Inferno as a GNU/Linux process?  It seems like it could be useful.
> 
> Some comments about the package definition:
> 
> >     (build-system trivial-build-system)
> >     (native-inputs `(("bash" ,bash)
> >                      ("coreutils" ,coreutils)
> >                      ("grep" ,grep)
> >                      ("sed" ,sed)
> >                      ("awk" ,gawk)
> >                      ("xz" ,xz)
> >                      ("tar" ,tar)
> >                      ("gcc-toolchain" ,gcc-toolchain)                     ))
> >     (inputs `(("libx11" ,libx11)
> >               ("xorgproto" ,xorgproto)
> >               ("libxext" ,libxext)))
> 
> Like Efraim wrote, I think using ‘gnu-build-system’ would allow you to
> simplify the package definition.
> 
> >              ;; build mk
> >              (invoke "./makemk.sh")
> 
> It would be ideal if we had a separate package for ‘mk’ (I suppose it
> can run on POSIX systems, right?).

I can finish my mk package and send it in.
My mk is the canonical set of mk files as used by bmake.
Sources are from http://crufty.net/help/sjg/mk-files.htm
and/or places linked from there.

If this matches the mk mentioned here, I can create this patch.

> Once you’ve double-checked the licensing and trademark situation, I
> think you can go ahead and submit it as a patch (or two patches, with
> ‘mk’ separately).
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Ludo’.
>