Hi Brandon, Brandon Invergo <[email protected]> skribis:
> [email protected] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> After a quick glance over the differences, it’s not clear to me what >> should be done. Often, descriptions in GSRC are shorter that what we >> have. Sometimes they’re the same, or stripped version of those we have. >> Sometimes they paraphrase those we have. >> >> Descriptions in Guix are typically taken from the upstream web page or >> README file, so I would intuitively feel like the upstream description >> better characterizes the package. > > Just a quick response to this. When I was writing the descriptions for > GSRC, I wasn't sure whether I could copy descriptions wholesale from the > project websites due to copyright claims. I doubt that anyone would get > upset but I was just playing it safe. For example, they take a similar > precaution with the free software directory on fsf.org. So, that's the > reason most of them are paraphrased. Yes, but it’s unclear whether these are copyrightable, and since these are GNU packages anyway, it’s safe to directly copy their descriptions, I think. > Anyway, I'm happy to sync in the other direction and pull some > descriptions from Guix into GSRC. > > Perhaps it would be best to keep all canonical package descriptions, > short and long, in a single file under revision control somewhere, such > as in womb. They would then be available for anyone who needs them, > should any need arise in the future and it would be easier for all > involved to stay in sync. What do you think? Sounds good to me. A related question is i18n: Guix uses gettext, and the plan is to use the Translation Project for the translation of synopses/descriptions too. Should that be handled externally too? If it is, we’d still need to have a gettext catalog for our purposes. How could that work? Thanks, Ludo’.
