l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > 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’.
Okay, and this description is set outside of gnunet.org I assume. If I propose this new description to Christian (currently it was a number of people but I only talked to cg at the conference where we met that I feel it needs some change etc), is that weightful enough to change the description on gnu.org whereever it sits? >>> 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. > > -- ng personal contact: http://krosos.sdf.org EDN: https://wiki.c3d2.de/EDN
