Ludovic Courtès writes:
> Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wur...@mdc-berlin.de> skribis:
>
>> From ca3474b1a639e43d708aad4385057cd84e3cce8b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wur...@mdc-berlin.de>
>> Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 17:46:35 +0200
>> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add Biopython.
>>
>> * gnu/packages/bioinformatics.scm (python-biopython, python2-biopython): New
>> variables.
>
> [...]
>
>> + (home-page "http://biopython.org/";)
>> + (synopsis "Set of tools for biological computation in Python")
>
> s/Set of//
Okay.
>> + (description
>> + "Biopython is a set of tools for biological computation written in
>> Python
>> +by an international team of developers.")
>
> What about removing “written ...” and instead giving a few keywords of
> the features/algorithms it implements?
I've changed the description to this:
"Biopython is a set of tools for biological computation including parsers
for bioinformatics files into Python data structures; interfaces to common
bioinformatics programs; a standard sequence class and tools for performing
common operations on them; code to perform data classification; code for
dealing with alignments; code making it easy to split up parallelizable tasks
into separate processes; and more."
After checking the license again, I have doubts whether it really is
Expat. The wording of the license differs from that of the Expat
license, though the meaning is very similar.
http://www.biopython.org/DIST/LICENSE
http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Expat
FWIW, Fedora names the license "MIT" in their python-biopython package.
Is it really okay for me to use "license:expat" or should I use a
different one?
~~ Ricardo
