l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Hi Amirouche, > > Some comments to complement Kei’s. > > Kei Kebreau <k...@openmailbox.org> skribis: > >> Amirouche Boubekki <amirouche.boube...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Warning: scheme-bytestructures works on various implementation of Scheme >>> but this patch adds >>> it only for guile-2.0. >>> >>> This is a pure scheme package there is no autotools that's why I use the >>> trivial-build-system. >>> >>> This doesn't run the test suite, yet. >>> >>> From fb2eb7ffd88ec4fba09411195a54b59d67d9c137 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>> From: Amirouche <amirou...@hypermove.net> >>> Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 12:31:20 +0200 >>> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add scheme-bytestructures >>> >>> * gnu/packages/guile.scm (scheme-bytestructures): New variable. >>> >>> diff --git a/gnu/packages/guile.scm b/gnu/packages/guile.scm >>> index 0890f19..383990e 100644 >>> --- a/gnu/packages/guile.scm >>> +++ b/gnu/packages/guile.scm >>> @@ -1265,4 +1265,105 @@ is no support for parsing block and inline level >>> HTML.") >>> (define-public guile2.2-commonmark >>> (package-for-guile-2.2 guile-commonmark)) >>> >>> +(define-public scheme-bytestructures >>> + (package >>> + (name "scheme-bytestructures") > > I would suggest calling it “guile-scheme-bytestructures” (or > “guile-bytestructures”?) to distinguish this package from the same one > built for another implementation.
FWIW, second option sounds good to me (guile-bytestructures), speaking as bytestructures author. >>> + (license gpl3))) > > Probably ‘gpl3+’; could you check? The intention is gpl3+ so if any file implies otherwise that's an error on my end. I'm pretty sure I've used standard gpl3+ boilerplate everywhere though. Thanks all for doing this. :-) Taylan
