Hi Rob, My personal view is that it would be great to include this.
I guess the main underlying question is how "bloated" we want to make the distribution. Your contribution is just 200 lines, so I think it is fine. Of course, if we always say that... My personal wish would be to have something like PyPi for Guile. Note that for Python it hasn't precluded to also package for distributions (with the ---break-system-packages mechanism as a consequence). With a PyPi-ike repository, the core Guile package could perhaps be slimmer. Best regards, Mikael On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 3:05 AM Rob Browning <r...@defaultvalue.org> wrote: > Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.courno...@gmail.com> writes: > > > That's great. In case that could be useful for future ports, I had > > devised a hacky script to automate the task to migrate the upstream html > > documentation to texinfo, it's available here: > > <https://lists.gnu.org/r/guile-devel/2023-12/msg00069.html>. > > Oh, that might have been handy. > > > that is, having annotated SPDX licensing information in every file of > > the project, which would make it very clear what licensed gets pulled > > into Guile (and other users) when copying source files. See the > > <https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-process.html> page, which documents > > it. > > Unless there are some SPDX drawbacks I don't know about, that sounds > nice (I've been using it myself of late). > > > I've gone ahead and submitted a PR to this repo to add the SPDX licenses > > annotations, which should make your job slightly easier here, by not > > having to hunt and place the license text yourself in the source files: > > <https://github.com/scheme-requests-for-implementation/srfi-197/pull/5>. > > Thanks much, for that, and the review. > > I suppose the main question is still whether we want srfi-197 in > guile. > > -- > Rob Browning > rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org > GPG as of 2011-07-10 E6A9 DA3C C9FD 1FF8 C676 D2C4 C0F0 39E9 ED1B 597A > GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4 > >
