John Darrington <j...@gnu.org> skribis:
> * gnu/packages/linux.scm (nfs-utils): New variable.
(gnu packages linux) was meant for things that use non-portable
interfaces of the kernel Linux. I don’t think that is the case here?
So maybe this should go to (gnu packages onc-rpc) or (gnu packages nfs).
> + #:phases (modify-phases %standard-phases
> + (add-before
> + 'configure 'mutate-source
Move to line above.
Maybe ‘adjust-command-file-names’ would be more descriptive a phase
name?
> + (lambda _
> + ;; Eventually, we should provide our own start-statd
> + ;; script instead ... one which starts the rpc.statd
> + ;; service (which we don't yet have)
> + (substitute* `("utils/statd/start-statd")
> + (("^PATH=.*") "")
> + (("^flock")
> + (string-append
> + (assoc-ref %build-inputs "util-linux")
> + "/bin/flock"))
> + (("^exec rpc.statd")
> + (string-append "exec "
> + (assoc-ref %outputs "out") "/sbin/rpc.statd")))
I think the comment should probably mention something like “Remove FHS
assumptions from the 'start-statd' script.” The bit about the need for
a service is not really relevant here, IMO.
Please punctuate sentences too. :-)
> + ;; It is hard to be sure what the licence is. Most of the source files
> + ;; contain no licence notice at all. A few have a licence notice for a 3
> + ;; clause non-copyleft licence. However the tarball has a COPYING file
> + ;; with the text of GPLv2 -- It seems then that GLPv2 is the most
> + ;; restrictive licence, and until advice to the contrary we must assume
> + ;; that is what is intended.
> + (license license:gpl2)))
I think this should be gpl2+ unless the “or later version” wording has
been explicitly removed.
OK with these changes, thanks!
Ludo’.
