Hello Diego, Diego Nicola Barbato <dnbarb...@posteo.de> skribis:
> I have written a package definition for Inferno and I would like to know > if it would make sense to add it to Guix. I am asking because I am not > sure if it is compatible with the FSDG (bundled fonts, trademarks, ...) > and if it would be of any use to anyone. Removing the proprietary(?) fonts like you did sounds like the right thing to do. As for trademarks, please see <https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#trademarks> to determine whether there’s a problem at all. Could you also check whether all the code is GPLv2+ like the ‘license’ field suggests? Do I get it right that the build result is a script that launches Inferno as a GNU/Linux process? It seems like it could be useful. Some comments about the package definition: > (build-system trivial-build-system) > (native-inputs `(("bash" ,bash) > ("coreutils" ,coreutils) > ("grep" ,grep) > ("sed" ,sed) > ("awk" ,gawk) > ("xz" ,xz) > ("tar" ,tar) > ("gcc-toolchain" ,gcc-toolchain) )) > (inputs `(("libx11" ,libx11) > ("xorgproto" ,xorgproto) > ("libxext" ,libxext))) Like Efraim wrote, I think using ‘gnu-build-system’ would allow you to simplify the package definition. > ;; build mk > (invoke "./makemk.sh") It would be ideal if we had a separate package for ‘mk’ (I suppose it can run on POSIX systems, right?). Once you’ve double-checked the licensing and trademark situation, I think you can go ahead and submit it as a patch (or two patches, with ‘mk’ separately). Thanks! Ludo’.
