Re: various packaging issues

Yes, we do know who he is! :) Still, that issue is somewhat not clear to me, neither is the submission which started it all back in 2002. -- - [[https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno]] - Palestrante e consultor sobre /software/ livre (não confundir com gratis). - "WhatsApp"? Ele não é

Re: various packaging issues

Adonay Felipe Nogueira writes: > About own opinions and blocked contributions: Since you commented on a > contribution to a GNU project, I wonder if the issue was taken to the > FSF's Licensing and Compliance Lab and also to copyright-related > lawyers? Remember that the

Re: various packaging issues

Regarding the meaning of the license list: I see what you mean now. Thanks. :) About own opinions and blocked contributions: Since you commented on a contribution to a GNU project, I wonder if the issue was taken to the FSF's Licensing and Compliance Lab and also to copyright-related lawyers?

Re: various packaging issues

Dave Love skribis: > l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> Honestly it’s unclear to me that this would bring much to >> >> and related sections. > > I'm seeing it from the point of view of view of

Re: various packaging issues

l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Honestly it’s unclear to me that this would bring much to > > and related sections. I'm seeing it from the point of view of view of someone who's quite experienced with Fedora and

Re: various packaging issues

Hi, Dave Love skribis: > Ricardo Wurmus writes: > >> One example is “kentutils” in (gnu packages bioinformatics). It has >> “samtabix” among its native-inputs and these additional sources are >> unpacked in a separate build phase “prepare-samtabix”. > > Ah,

Re: various packaging issues

Ricardo Wurmus writes: > One example is “kentutils” in (gnu packages bioinformatics). It has > “samtabix” among its native-inputs and these additional sources are > unpacked in a separate build phase “prepare-samtabix”. Ah, thanks! Has anyone done or considered a rough

Re: various packaging issues

Dave Love writes: >>> * RPM specs commonly have multiple sources specified, e.g. source and >>> doc or example tarballs, or configuration files of some kind which >>> aren't patches. Is there a way to do that? >> >> The ‘source’ field can be only one thing. However, you can

Re: various packaging issues

Adonay Felipe Nogueira writes: > About the license field notation, I don't know if this is indeed what > the GNU Guix project interpretes about it, but for me I always see a > list of licenses as being connected with a series of "or"'s. That appears to be wrong, and

Re: various packaging issues

l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Hello Dave, > > Glad to see another Guix user in HPC! Not exactly, I'm afraid. This is largely academic research as I have to deal with and contribute to a typical mess of "module" stuff (which isn't at all modular, or course). [I'm surprised that

Re: various packaging issues

About the license field notation, I don't know if this is indeed what the GNU Guix project interpretes about it, but for me I always see a list of licenses as being connected with a series of "or"'s. One thing to note however, and I often find it simpler to do, is that: at least in *my* opinion,

Re: various packaging issues

Hello Dave, Glad to see another Guix user in HPC! Dave Love skribis: > * I should specify a disjunction of licences like "BSD or GPLv2" rather > than the conjunction, which seems to be represented as a list (though > the doc doesn't say what a list represents). I.e. in

various packaging issues

I was looking at making packages for HPC-related stuff I'm familiar with and I'm wondering how to translate features of the rpm or dpkg packaging that I understand. I couldn't see answers in the doc or immediately find examples; apologies if I've missed something obvious. * I should specify a