[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: New Egg: SRFI-151

From: Mario Domenech Goulart
Subject: Re: New Egg: SRFI-151
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2020 12:52:49 +0200

Hi Sören,

On Sat, 08 Aug 2020 18:58:35 +0200 Sören Tempel <> 

> Mario Domenech Goulart <> wrote:
>> My only remark would be regarding the license, which AFAIK should be
>> MIT.  John Cowan would be able to clarify that.
> I went through the license comments in these files and bitwise-60.scm
> and bitwise-core.scm have a license which is identified in the CHICKEN
> wiki as „Free Use” (I have actually never seen this license before):
> The other *.scm files with the exception of (chicken-test.scm and
> srfi-151.scm) have a public domain license header. For this reason, I
> used "Public Domain/Free Use" as the license string, as recommended by
> the eggs-licensing wiki page.
> The files chicken-test.scm and srfi-151.scm have no license header.
> However, according to Arthur Gleckler they are in fact licensed under
> the MIT license [1]. I would have added a corresponding license header
> (as suggested by Arthur) but I am unsure who the copyright holders for
> these files are.

As John Cowan confirmed, the egg should be MIT.  When you have a chance,
please update the `license' field in the srfi-151.egg file.  If you
don't intend to create another tag for that change, please move tag
1.0.0 to the commit that fixes the license.  Alternatively, you can just
create another tag.

>> Some files in the repository are not really important for the egg (e.g.,
>> .html files, Scheme files which are not included by the CHICKEN
>> implementation). They would be part of the egg, but not really used.
>> Not a big deal, IMO, but since your repo is a fork to make the code
>> CHICKEN-specific, maybe it would be worth removing the unnecessary
>> files.
> That's also something I noticed. Should I just remove these files from
> the repository or would it be preferable to create a meta-file which
> ensures that only the scheme files are included in the egg [2]?

Since this is a CHICKEN-specific repository, I don't see much use in
having the files in the repository and filtering them out in
`meta-file'.  Maybe you have a good reason related to maintenance?  Up
to you, actually.

>> Fun fact: I had packaged SRF-151 for CHICKEN 5 a couple of hours before
>> I saw your pull request in GitHub (talk about coincidence).  I just
>> didn't make the egg available because I hadn't ported the documentation
>> to the wiki format.  I hope providing documentation in wiki format in
>> your plans.  If so, and if you want a wiki account, please send me the
>> username you intend to use and the hash of your password (it can be
>> generated with "openssl passwd -apr1").  Having the documentation in the
>> wiki is nice, as symbols exported by the egg are indexed by
> I didn't know that there was a specific documentation format for the
> wiki. Where can I find more information about it? shows a summary on the format.  The
source of the egg documentation in the wiki subversion repository
contains more examples.

> However, I actually just need this egg for a small scheme project of
> mine. Since my spare time is rather limited these days I cannot
> promise that I get around to adding documentation in the wiki
> format. So far, I relied on the documentation provided by the SRFI.

Ok.  That's fair.  Since I was going to do that anyway, I went ahead and
converted the documentation of SRFI-151 to the CHICKEN wiki format.  You
can find it here:

As soon as your egg gets added to egg-locations, I'm gonna update

Please note that if you create another tag to fix the license in
srfi-151.egg, the "CHICKEN egg version history"
( )
must be updated.

> I can also include the SRFI code directly in the repository of my
> other project if that's a blocker for you. I just thought this SRFI
> might be useful for other CHICKEN users as well.

It is certainly useful and your contribution is very much appreciated.

> Thanks for your feedback so far!

You're welcome!

> [1]: 
> [2]:

All the best.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]