[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add higan.
From: |
Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add higan. |
Date: |
Tue, 07 Jun 2016 22:08:48 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) |
Efraim Flashner <address@hidden> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 06:28:59PM +0300, Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer wrote:
>> If there are no comments, I'll just push this soon, and issues can be
>> fixed later; at least it builds and runs fine. :-)
>>
>> Taylan
>>
>>
>> address@hidden (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") writes:
>>
>> > Some things to note about this package & questions:
>> >
>> > - There's no official VCS repo and the author doesn't want automated
>> > tools to download files from his homepage; there's an unofficial git
>> > repo at GitLab but I found it unsuitable so I'm hosting the sources
>> > specifically for Guix at GitHub now:
>> >
>
> it does list http://download.byuu.org/higan_v098-source.7z and it lists
> the git repo at https://gitlab.com/higan/higan , which only there says
> its the unofficial one.
The author doesn't wish for build tools to download tarballs from the
site. From a thread on the BBS forum:
| I don't want people writing build scripts that fetch the source from
| byuu.org. I change file names and directory structures all the time,
| and I don't want that breaking people's builds.
| I would rather distributions host their own repositories of build
| files. And for that, you're welcome to store higan in .tar.xz format
| instead of .7z format.
The linked GitLab repo could be said to be semi-official, but I noted
that it doesn't tag releases very consistently. E.g. there's no tag for
the latest release.
>> > https://github.com/TaylanUB/higan
>> >
>> > Is this OK, or is there a place we can upload the original source
>> > bundle for Guix to download from?
>> >
>> > - I forgot if there's a guideline for this: the release versions are
>> > called 'v097', 'v098' etc. with always a 'v' in front. Should that
>> > 'v' appear in the version field of the package or should it be
>> > stripped?
>
> This one I have some insight for. Vapoursynth numbers all their versions
> R28, R29, etc. Its version is 29, with the download as `... name "-R"
> version ...'
Ah good, I'll strip the 'v' then.
>> > - As seems to be tradition among emulator developers, the build system
>> > and the program's handling of the file system are a big pile of poo,
>> > so:
>> >
>> > * Is it principally OK to reuse the standard `build' and `install'
>> > phase procedures a second time, just with the CWD changed, as I do
>> > here?
>
> that should be ok
Thanks for the review. :-)
Taylan