[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add stress-make.
From: |
Eric Bavier |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add stress-make. |
Date: |
Tue, 9 Aug 2016 17:47:28 -0500 |
On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 21:59:16 -0400
Leo Famulari <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 11:53:33AM -0500, Eric Bavier wrote:
> > Hello Guix,
> >
> > I'm mostly looking for a second-opinion on the license of this package.
> > Other comments welcome too, of course.
> >
> > * gnu/packages/debug.scm (stress-make): New variable.
>
> > + (version (string-append "1.0-" revision "." (string-take commit 7)))
> >
>
> It appears they never made a release, so I think we should use "0.0.0"
> instead of "1.0".
I used "1.0" because that's the version number in configure.ac.
>
> > + (uri (git-reference
> > + (url "git://github.com/losalamos/stress-make.git")
>
> I think it's better to use the HTTPS protocol instead of the Git
> protocol, unless there is some reason not to. What do you think?
>
> https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-on-the-Server-The-Protocols#The-Git-Protocol
OK, sounds good.
>
> > + (inputs
> > + `(("make-src" ,(package-source gnu-make))))
>
> How about "make-source", since we seem to shun abbreviations?
Right.
>
> > + (arguments
> > + ;; stress-make's configure script insists on having a tarball and
> > does
> > + ;; not accept a directory name instead. To let the
> > gnu-build-system's
> > + ;; patch-* phases work properly, we unpack the source first, then
> > + ;; repack before the configure phase.
>
> o_O
Yeah, it's a bit weird.
>
> > + ;; stress-make wrapper is under
> > BSD-3-modifications-must-be-indicated,
> > + ;; and patched GNU Make is under its own license.
> > + (license (list bsd-3 (package-license gnu-make))))))
>
> Perhaps we should call it non-copyleft instead of bsd-3?
That seems more appropriate, yes.
Thanks for the review,
`~Eric