l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Nils Gillmann <niaster...@grrlz.net> skribis: > >> Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> writes: > > [...] > >>>> + (description "GNUnet is a framework for secure, distributed, >>>> peer-to-peer >>>> +networking. The high-level goal is to provide a strong foundation of free >>>> +software for a global, distributed network which provides security and >>>> +privacy. GNUnet in that sense aims to replace the current internet >>>> protocol >>>> +stack. Along with an application for secure publication of files, it has >>>> +grown to include all kinds of basic applications for the foundation of a >>>> GNU >>>> +internet. >>>> + >>>> +gnunet-0.10.1 is the last stable release candidate, however for >>>> +development purposes and keeping up with latest changes, the SVN version >>>> +might be preferable until a new version is released.") >>> >>> Do we have a consensus on how to handle this sort of "Guix metadata"? >> >> Which metadata do you refer to here? >> >> The description is good with the GNUnet project, talked about it >> with others involved in GNUnet. > > It’s not that simple. ;-) > > Descriptions for GNU packages are maintained in a canonical place > outside of Guix (they’re also use for other purposes, such as gnu.org), > and we synchronize from them. ‘guix lint -c gnu-description’ reports > differences with said database.
I have write access in gnunet.org and only need to find some minutes of focus and concentration to change the description on the frontpage. But I guess again that is is not that simple either for Guix? > > Thus, in general, we should keep the canonical synopsis/description for > GNU packages, and email bug-w...@gnu.org if we think a > synopsis/description must be changed. As far as I understand Christian, he's good with any better description which does not do total damage to the project. I got input on the description I added here from most of the people involved in SecuShare, another project I am involved in which is part of GNUnet, and it was okay for them. > Another comment: should we call this package “gnunet-next”, like we did > for “guile-next”? This would make it clear that it’s a development > snapshot. (Sorry for not coming up with that idea earlier.) I am used to -git, -svn, -vcs naming but I am not fixed to it. I can rename the two packages to -next, but it might give the impression of a different software if the added description is not included. Compare the opinion of someone who has never touched gnunet about "gnunet and gnunet-svn" vs "gnunet and gnunet-next". On the other hand it can just as well mark the next version... So I guess it is okay to name it gnunet-next, gnunet-gtk-next > WDYT? > > Thanks, > Ludo’. > > -- ng personal contact: http://krosos.sdf.org EDN: https://wiki.c3d2.de/EDN
