On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 21:59:16 -0400 Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> wrote:
> 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". I used "1.0" because that's the version number in configure.ac. > > > + (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 OK, sounds good. > > > + (inputs > > + `(("make-src" ,(package-source gnu-make)))) > > How about "make-source", since we seem to shun abbreviations? Right. > > > + (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 Yeah, it's a bit weird. > > > + ;; 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? That seems more appropriate, yes. Thanks for the review, `~Eric
