Roel Janssen <r...@gnu.org> writes:
> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>
>> Roel Janssen <r...@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>> Here I have a package recipe for perltidy. The version number differs
>>> from the usual scheme, but that's what the project uses, so I cannot do
>>> much about it.
>>
>> I don’t think that’s a problem.
>>
>>>>From d6cc1580a362f759bbd85107435a47c0eac04954 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Roel Janssen <r...@gnu.org>
>>> Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 10:51:58 +0200
>>> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add perltidy.
>>>
>>> * gnu/packages/perl.scm (perltidy): New variable.
>>> ---
>>> gnu/packages/perl.scm | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/gnu/packages/perl.scm b/gnu/packages/perl.scm
>>> index 74a47b4..e34515e 100644
>>> --- a/gnu/packages/perl.scm
>>> +++ b/gnu/packages/perl.scm
>>> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
>>> ;;; Copyright © 2016 Efraim Flashner <efr...@flashner.co.il>
>>> ;;; Coypright © 2016 ng0 <n...@we.make.ritual.n0.is>
>>> ;;; Copyright © 2016 Alex Sassmannshausen <a...@pompo.co>
>>> +;;; Copyright © 2016 Roel Janssen <r...@gnu.org>
>>> ;;;
>>> ;;; This file is part of GNU Guix.
>>> ;;;
>>> @@ -5986,6 +5987,27 @@ system.")
>>> as exceptions to standard program flow.")
>>> (license (package-license perl))))
>>>
>>> +(define-public perltidy
>>> + (package
>>> + (name "perltidy")
>>
>> “perltidy” (as in the domain name) or “perl-tidy” (as in the tarball)?
>> I don’t remember what our naming guidelines say about this. (I think
>> “perltidy” is correct.)
>
> I think they are clear on the project's name. For example, the homepage
> title: “The Perltidy Home Page”
Okay, you’re right. “perltidy” it is, then! :)
>>> + (version "20160302")
>>> + (source (origin
>>> + (method url-fetch)
>>> + (uri (string-append
>>> "mirror://sourceforge/perltidy/Perl-Tidy-"
>>> + version ".tar.gz"))
>>> + (file-name (string-append name "-" version ".tar.gz"))
>>
>> Is this necessary or can we just keep the tarball name as it is?
>
> I guess not. I thought we had to rename the tarballs to match the
> package names (so in this case, without the dash). If it is not
> necessary, I will remove it from the final patch..
I just checked the packaging guidelines in the manual and couldn’t find
any statement on when to use “file-name”. It is only described in
section 5.1.2:
‘file-name’ (default: ‘#f’)
The file name under which the source code should be saved.
When this is ‘#f’, a sensible default value will be used in
most cases. In case the source is fetched from a URL, the
file name from the URL will be used. For version control
checkouts, it is recommended to provide the file name
explicitly because the default is not very descriptive.
I think the original name is descriptive enough as it actually contains
the name of the package.
So I think you can remove the “file-name” expression and push this.
~~ Ricardo
