emacs-bug-tracker
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

bug#41490: closed ([PATCH 0/5] Add pEp (pretty Easy privacy))


From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: bug#41490: closed ([PATCH 0/5] Add pEp (pretty Easy privacy))
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 18:03:02 +0000

Your message dated Tue, 9 Jun 2020 20:02:27 +0200
with message-id <69765c5c-c0d1-12a2-9478-02acd24b0ba3@crazy-compilers.com>
and subject line Re: Advice on package naming
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #41490,
regarding [PATCH 0/5] Add pEp (pretty Easy privacy)
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs@gnu.org.)


-- 
41490: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=41490
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: [PATCH 0/5] Add pEp (pretty Easy privacy) Date: Sat, 23 May 2020 20:48:42 +0200
This adds the build tools and libraries for pretty Easy Privacy, a library for
automatic key management and encryption of messages.

How shall we name the packages here?
I'd appreciate feedback to the package names, since the original packages have
quiet uncommon names:

- pEpEngine -> pep-engine (main library)
- libpEpAdapter -> intermediate layer library
- pEpPythonAdapter -> python-pep-adapter
- pEpJNIAdapter -> java-pep-adapter

The project as other packages like these:
- pEpQtAdapter
- pEpJSONServerAdapter
- pEpObjCAdapter

In Arch Linux AUR packages are named pep-engine, libpep-adapter,
python-pep-adapter, pep-jni-adapter, pep-qt-adapter.

Hartmut Goebel (5):
  gnu: Add yml2.
  gnu: Add pep-engine.
  gnu: Add libpepadapter.
  gnu: Add python-pep-adapter.
  gnu: Add java-pep-adapter.

 gnu/local.mk         |   1 +
 gnu/packages/pep.scm | 349 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 350 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 gnu/packages/pep.scm

-- 
2.21.3




--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: Advice on package naming Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 20:02:27 +0200 User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0
Hi Ludo,
> That LGTM, I think it’s pretty much in line with: 

Thanks.

Pushed as 3cf7088fc646e07158914dea1314151123472ec2


-- 
Regards
Hartmut Goebel

| Hartmut Goebel          | h.goebel@crazy-compilers.com               |
| www.crazy-compilers.com | compilers which you thought are impossible |



--- End Message ---

reply via email to

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