Andreas Enge writes:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:29:47AM +0100, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
>> +(license license:gpl3)))
>
> From the text printed on the license page you give, it should be gpl3+.
> Otherwise it looks good, pleas push!
You are of course right! Will push with that change.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:29:47AM +0100, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
> +(license license:gpl3)))
>From the text printed on the license page you give, it should be gpl3+.
Otherwise it looks good, pleas push!
Andreas
/#license
Attached is an updated patch.
~~ Ricardo
>From 88a5924c36ccd5317de0307ee4aa9b959ffeb9bd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ricardo Wurmus
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 15:00:04 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add RSeQC.
* gnu/packages/bioinformatics.scm (rseqc): New variable.
---
gnu/packages/bioinf
Ricardo Wurmus writes:
> The license isn't very clear. The Google Code website[1] lists the
> license as "GPLv3", but nowhere in the source is the license version
> specified. "PKG-INFO" declares "License :: GPL", whereas
> "./doc/COPYING" contains the MIT license. It's all pretty messy, so I
need to be solved before adding
RSeQC), does this patch look okay?
~~ Ricardo
___
[1]: http://code.google.com/p/rseqc
>From e99a3cdb587afcf874495519c4dcf380295bd6f1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ricardo Wurmus
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 15:00:04 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add RSeQC.
*
