Hello Ian,
> You don’t need to be a member to send a patch. Changes need to go
> through the guix-patches list and debugs. Please see `guix
> (Contributing)' in the Guix manual[1] for the process to follow.
Ok, I will send a patch to guix-patches then.
> Since this is library code, other pac
Hi Ian,
On Sun, Feb 16 2025, Ian Eure wrote:
> Your purported authorization is irrelevant, as the name is within the
> Guix project, not g-golf; and even if Guix had renamed the project,
> such changes are explicitly permitted by g-golf’d LGPLv3 license.
>
> Since you seem to be more devoted to m
On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 1:49 PM David Pirotte wrote:
>
> Hello Ian,
>
> > I'll submit a patch: please allow me to send the patch to this list,
> > I not a guix-patches list member.
>
> Attached. Please review and apply asap.
>
> Thanks,
> David
Hi,
As a guix user (I'm not a core dev nor have com
Hello all,
David Pirotte ezt írta (időpont: 2025. febr. 16., V, 20:49):
>
> Hello Ian,
>
> > I'll submit a patch: please allow me to send the patch to this list,
> > I not a guix-patches list member.
>
> Attached. Please review and apply asap.
I am sorry that we got to this point.
I am sorry on
Hi David,
David Pirotte writes:
Hi Inan,
Ultimately, this kind of decision is a judgement call on the
part
of the committers reviewing the patches. In this case, the
concensus is clear that the Guix convention should be upheld.
Sorry to hear that [1], but I do not authorize guix to pic
Hello Ian,
> I'll submit a patch: please allow me to send the patch to this list,
> I not a guix-patches list member.
Attached. Please review and apply asap.
Thanks,
David
From cd3e10080b68f11e1027f5bc9b1b11226393139b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: David Pirotte
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 16:45:08
Hi Inan,
> Ultimately, this kind of decision is a judgement call on the part
> of the committers reviewing the patches. In this case, the
> concensus is clear that the Guix convention should be upheld.
Sorry to hear that [1], but I do not authorize guix to pick a different
name, for its g-gol
Hi David,
David Pirotte writes:
> Hello Maxim,
>
>> I think our naming rules are reasonable. Interpreted language
>> *libraries* are typically prefixed by the interpreter name ...
>
> Yes, but in this particular case, I am merely asking guix to accept to
> make an exception, as expressed in my
Hi David,
David Pirotte writes:
Hello Ricardo,
Is this such a problem, for guix, to make an exception? As you
all
understood by now, this is a bit of a sensitive subject for me.
Ultimately, this kind of decision is a judgement call on the part
of the committers reviewing the patches. In
Hello Maxim,
> I think our naming rules are reasonable. Interpreted language
> *libraries* are typically prefixed by the interpreter name ...
Yes, but in this particular case, I am merely asking guix to accept to
make an exception, as expressed in my answer to Ricardo.
Thanks,
David
pgptdezIB
Hello Ricardo,
> Frankly, this is absurd.
What is absurd here, Ricardo, is the situation, that is, the guix
reaction to my kindly expressed request that it would use the upstream
name as its g-golf package name, post-fixed as required:
g-golf-x.y.z[-guile-x.y]
[ with additional p
Hi David,
David Pirotte writes:
[...]
>> As a first rule, the upstream name g-golf should be kept as is.
>
> There should be no other rule.
I think our naming rules are reasonable. Interpreted language
*libraries* are typically prefixed by the interpreter name,
e.g. 'python-markdown', althoug
David Pirotte writes:
>> it is not up to every author/committer to name things as they wish.
>
> Quite the opposite: it should not be up to the distro to rename
> upstream projects as they wish. At the very least, the distro should
> ask for an authorization.
Frankly, this is absurd.
The upstre
Hello Andreas,
> we have packaging guidelines to make things predictable for users
Imo, this is a counter argument: users do hear about GNU G-Golf,
g-golf, through emails, #guile, #guix, #gtk, #introspection ...
dedicated 'news' websites ... not because of guix.
By renaming, guix actually turns
Hi,
Regarding what Andreas said about libraries, thanks for pointing out g-wrap.
It should also be named guile-g-wrap in Guix, as its only ‘binary’ does not
make it any less of a library. I'll make that change the next time I touch the
repo, if nobody else bothers to.
Kind regards,
T G-R
Hello David,
Am Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 07:44:45PM -0300 schrieb David Pirotte:
> In my initial message, I was merely asking to not apply the guile-
> prefix rule to the g-golf package definition.
> That I would not do this for other packages either was an answer to
> iyzsong, as they were explaining
Hello Ian,
> Changing this convention would require a very large amount of work
> ...
In my initial message, I was merely asking to not apply the guile-
prefix rule to the g-golf package definition.
That I would not do this for other packages either was an answer to
iyzsong, as they were explai
Hi David,
David Pirotte writes:
In Guix program languages specified libraries are named with
the
language as prefix, eg: python-six, perl-dbix-simple, and
guile-g-golf.
Guix should not do this. ...
Changing this convention would require a very large amount of work
and disrupt things ever
Hello iyzsong,
> Well, g-golf is deprecated by guile-g-golf here, so guile-g-golf is
> the correct name..
Sorry, guile-g-golf can't be a correct name. it actually is an
incorrect name 'by definition' - there is only one correct name, GNU
G-Golf, abreviated in all distro (but guix) as g-golf x.y.z
David Pirotte writes:
> prefixed by 'guile-', and i see this has been adopted, many thanks:
>
> https://packages.guix.gnu.org/search/?query=g-golf
> =>
> g-golf 0.8.0-rc9
>
> But I see it still has:
>
> guile-g-golf 0.8.0-rc9
Well, g-golf is deprecated by guile-g-golf her
Hello Guix,
Completing my previous sent email about G-Golf packages
in Guix
I did ask, a long time ago, that G-Golf pkg(s) name(s) would not be
prefixed by 'guile-', and i see this has been adopted, many thanks:
https://packages.guix.gnu.org/search/?query=g-golf
=
21 matches
Mail list logo
