Nils Gillmann <niaster...@grrlz.net> skribis: > 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.
Do what you want. ;-) My point is just that the description that appears in Guix must be the canonical GNU description, i.e., the one returned by ‘guix lint’. >> 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 Sorry, I had overlooked that “-svn” is already there. Perfect! Thank you, Ludo’, who must be tired.
