On Thu, 8 Sep 2016 13:44:38 +0300 Efraim Flashner <efr...@flashner.co.il> wrote:
> * gnu/packages/enlightenment.scm (edi): New variable. > --- > gnu/packages/enlightenment.scm | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/gnu/packages/enlightenment.scm b/gnu/packages/enlightenment.scm > index 7cd11b5..a0c5a83 100644 > --- a/gnu/packages/enlightenment.scm > +++ b/gnu/packages/enlightenment.scm > @@ -275,3 +275,29 @@ Libraries stack (eo, evas, ecore, edje, emotion, ethumb > and elementary).") > > (define-public python2-efl > (package-with-python2 python-efl)) > + > +(define-public edi > + (package > + (name "edi") > + (version "0.4.0") > + (source > + (origin > + (method url-fetch) > + (uri (list > + (string-append > "https://download.enlightenment.org/rel/apps/edi"; > + "/edi-" version ".tar.bz2") > + (string-append "https://github.com/ajwillia-ms/edi/releases/"; > + "download/v" version "/edi-" version > ".tar.bz2"))) > + (sha256 > + (base32 > + "02d8hplcviayri8fxws56n362k6zqsf62v8pbn5sbgwrmkqwybhc")))) > + (build-system gnu-build-system) > + (native-inputs `(("pkg-config" ,pkg-config))) > + (inputs `(("efl" ,efl))) Apparently EDI can use libclang for syntax highlighting. Would that be useful enough to add clang as an input? > + (home-page "https://www.enlightenment.org/about-edi";) > + (synopsis "Development environment using the EFL") I think its best (and the guix manual suggests) to avoid acronyms in the package synopsis. Maybe: "Development environment for Enlightenment"? > + (description "EDI is a development environment designed for and built > using > +the EFL. It's aim is to create a new, native development environment for > Linux > +that trys to lower the barrier to getting involved in Enlightenment > development ^^^^ "tries" > +and in creating apps based on the EFL suite.") ^^^^ That word makes me cringe every time. > + (license license:gpl2))) According to COPYING, the code in 'data/extra/skeleton' is public-domain. The other GPLv2 source doesn't appear to contain license headers, so I think we're allowed to say gpl2+. There's also a COPYING.LGPL file, the header of which say it applies to "Elm_Code", but I can't seem to find where that code lives. And then the edi/packaging/pkgbuild/PKGBUILD file has "license=('WTFPL')" in it. I haven't looked at the other enlightenment software, do they all have license situations like this? Could you look into it some more and get some clarification? Thanks, `~Eric
