l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis:
> Andreas Enge skribis:
>
>> But building the automake package fails with an enormous number of errors
>> in the check phase:
>
> Oh, that's most likely related to the /bin/sh change: I suppose the test
> suite generates a many scripts with #!/bin/sh.
Com
* gnu/packages/base.scm: install hostname along with the other programs
provided by coreutils.
---
Hello,
I needed GNU hostname, but could not find it in ~/.guix-profile/bin/,
even though I had previousy installed coreutils. This is because GNU
hostname is not automatically installed when compili
Andreas Enge skribis:
> So I will stop here and push as gpl2.
Good. Thanks for the thorough analysis!
Ludo’.
Andreas Enge skribis:
> Am Montag, 21. Januar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
>> > Does it qualify as "bsd-like"?
>> It looks like BSD-3 to me, or at least “BSD-like”.
>
> Sort of. Except that the second clause states that source code needs to be
> provided, whereas BSD just states that binary dis
Andreas Enge skribis:
> Am Montag, 21. Januar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
>> Alternately, you could move the ‘check’ phase after the install phase,
>> like this (untested):
>
> But then, if the check fails, the /nix/store would contain an "invalid"
> package, no?
No: if ‘check’ fails (or ‘ins
Am Montag, 21. Januar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
> Andreas Enge skribis:
> > Just to let you know I packaged groff; for once, without
> > complications. I will push it after we agree on what to do with the
> > psutils license.
> Excellent! For psutils, I’d say bsd-3 or bsd-like, whichever you
Hi,
Nikita Karetnikov skribis:
> 1. 'psd-list' is a potential bottleneck. It will cause problems when we
>have more packages. If it's possible to evaluate it lazily, I'll
>rewrite it. (I haven't checked yet.)
See below.
[...]
> 4. I've noticed that 'fold-packages' returns duplicate
Andreas Enge skribis:
> Just to let you know I packaged groff; for once, without complications. I
> will push it after we agree on what to do with the psutils license.
Excellent! For psutils, I’d say bsd-3 or bsd-like, whichever you find
the most appropriate.
> + (home-page "http://groff.ff
Just to let you know I packaged groff; for once, without complications. I
will push it after we agree on what to do with the psutils license.
Andreas
From 831086cbf2a30b7e4bddb7581eee65f84f5d10df Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andreas Enge
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 22:22:24 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 2/
Am Montag, 21. Januar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
> Seems like it’s either GPLv2+ or GPLv2-only. Is there a v2-only file?
Good question. There are 530 C files...
I will follow the debian analysis at
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/n/netpbm-free/netpbm-
free_10.0-12.2/libnetp
Am Montag, 21. Januar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
> > Does it qualify as "bsd-like"?
> It looks like BSD-3 to me, or at least “BSD-like”.
Sort of. Except that the second clause states that source code needs to be
provided, whereas BSD just states that binary distributions need to keep
the copy
Am Montag, 21. Januar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
> Alternately, you could move the ‘check’ phase after the install phase,
> like this (untested):
But then, if the check fails, the /nix/store would contain an "invalid"
package, no? I think it would be desirable to install only packages for
whi
Cyril Roelandt skribis:
> I think it's because of this bug :
> http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=13176
>
> The current workaround is :
> $ ./pre-inst-env ./guix-package -I ""
Right, this or the long option names:
guix-package --list-installed
guix-package --list-available
Ludo’.
Hi Florian,
Florian Friesdorf skribis:
> Would it be sane to package guix for NixOS? One would still need a
> checkout to get the scm package descriptions, but the building-guix-part
> would be solved.
I don’t know, but note that Guix has a release.nix file at its root. So
if everything goes w
Andreas Enge skribis:
> Am Montag, 21. Januar 2013 schrieb Cyril Roelandt:
[...]
>> Finally, a bunch of tests fail, and some of them cannot even be
>> launched:
>> "/nix/store/wqvmn0mmk68iwy88ljgqn57vjf15nf74-ocaml-4.00.1/bin/ocamlrun:
>> bad interpreter: No such file or directory"
>>
>> This
Hi!
Andreas Enge skribis:
> The attached patch adds psutils. Its license is homebrewed:
>http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/p/psutils/current/copyright
> Does it qualify as "bsd-like"?
It looks like BSD-3 to me, or at least “BSD-like”.
> If not, would it make sense to add a li
Andreas Enge skribis:
> Am Sonntag, 20. Januar 2013 schrieb Andreas Enge:
>> This is more annoying, I will investigate and try to remove non-free
>> parts.
>
> Now I remember, the one marked non-free is already not distributed;
> instead, the binary explains how to get the real code. I dropped i
Andreas Enge skribis:
> Am Sonntag, 20. Januar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
[...]
>> It seems to be more complex than this. Some files in lib/ have this:
>>
>> ** Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and
>> its ** documentation for any purpose and without fee is he
Am Montag, 21. Januar 2013 schrieb Cyril Roelandt:
> "patch-shebang: ./otherlibs/labltk/examples_labltk/hello.tcl: warning:
> no binary for interpreter `wish' found in $PATH"
>
> wish is provided by tk, and seems to require X, so I don't think it's
> too bad.
Hopefully, this is detected during co
19 matches
Mail list logo
