On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 01:02:51AM +0200, Nils Gillmann wrote: > 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". >
As someone who has never gotten past installing and uninstalling gnunet, gnunet-svn sounds like a development branch and gnunet-next sounds like it's almost ready. Other than having read this thread I would choose gnunet-next > gnunet > gnunet-svn > 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’. > > > > > -- Efraim Flashner <efr...@flashner.co.il> אפרים פלשנר GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
