On 08/28/2013 02:51 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Cyril Roelandt <[email protected]> skribis:
At the GHM, a Fedora hacker (whose name I forgot) suggested that it
might be time for us to write down some "rules" as to how packaging
should be done.
Sounds like a good idea. In general, when working in a group, I think
it’s better to discuss what our expectations are, and write as much of
it down, to avoid any misunderstandings or frustration. So yes, let’s
do it.
For instance, Andreas suggested that patches should only be used if we
think they might be applied upstream, thus keeping the patches/
directory as small as possible;
Agreed. Also, patches should start with a comment saying what they do,
and possibly what their upstream status is (submitted, will never be
submitted because it’s Guix-specific, etc.); perhaps the format of that
comment could even be formalized.
modifications specific to Guix should be written in Scheme.
Sometimes that may be hard or inconvenient though, so I would not set
that in stone.
Yes, I wrote a patch that just added "#if 0 ... #endif" around a test,
and that'd be harder to do in Scheme.
I would also like to define a standard way to order the "#:use-module"
at the beginning of each file, and agree on other "cosmetic" rules.
Not convinced about the ordering. ;-)
Isn't there such a convention in Scheme ? I'm often confused when
looking at the beginning of a Scheme file. NetBSD has such rules for its
includes
(http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/share/misc/style?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup).
What do you think ?
These are good examples of the kind of rules we may want to discuss and
adopt.
I'm also wondering how to name python packages. foo ? python-foo and
python3-foo ? python2-foo and python-foo ?
Cyril.
