On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 11:53:33AM -0500, Eric Bavier wrote: > Hello Guix, > > I'm mostly looking for a second-opinion on the license of this package. > Other comments welcome too, of course. > > * gnu/packages/debug.scm (stress-make): New variable.
> + (version (string-append "1.0-" revision "." (string-take commit 7))) It appears they never made a release, so I think we should use "0.0.0" instead of "1.0". > + (uri (git-reference > + (url "git://github.com/losalamos/stress-make.git") I think it's better to use the HTTPS protocol instead of the Git protocol, unless there is some reason not to. What do you think? https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-on-the-Server-The-Protocols#The-Git-Protocol > + (inputs > + `(("make-src" ,(package-source gnu-make)))) How about "make-source", since we seem to shun abbreviations? > + (arguments > + ;; stress-make's configure script insists on having a tarball and does > + ;; not accept a directory name instead. To let the gnu-build-system's > + ;; patch-* phases work properly, we unpack the source first, then > + ;; repack before the configure phase. o_O > + ;; stress-make wrapper is under BSD-3-modifications-must-be-indicated, > + ;; and patched GNU Make is under its own license. > + (license (list bsd-3 (package-license gnu-make)))))) Perhaps we should call it non-copyleft instead of bsd-3?
