guix-patches
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

[bug#61207] [PATCH v2] gnu: Add opentaxsolver.


From: Nicolas Goaziou
Subject: [bug#61207] [PATCH v2] gnu: Add opentaxsolver.
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2023 23:07:22 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux)

Hello,

Josselin Poiret via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@gnu.org> writes:

> From: Skylar Hill <stellarskylark@posteo.net>

Thanks to both of you.
>
> +      (source (origin
> +                (method url-fetch)
> +                (uri (string-append "mirror://sourceforge/opentaxsolver/OTS_"
> +                                    tax-year
> +                                    "/v"
> +                                    ots-version
> +                                    "_linux/OpenTaxSolver"
> +                                    version
> +                                    "_linux64.tgz"))

Formatting needs some love here.

> +                (sha256
> +                 (base32
> +                  "06k0a72bmwdmr71dvrp8b4vl8vilnggsh92hrp7wjdgcjj9m074w"))
> +                (patches (search-patches
> +                          "opentaxsolver-file-browser-fix.patch"))))

This file needs to be registered in gnu/local.mk file.

> +      (build-system glib-or-gtk-build-system)
> +      (arguments
> +       (list #:phases #~(modify-phases %standard-phases

  (list
   #:phases
   #~(...))

> +                          (delete 'check)

There are no tests. You need to use #:tests? keyword instead.

> +      (description
> +       "OpenTaxSolver is a free, safe, and secure program for calculating 
> tax form entries for federal and state personal income taxes.  It 
> automatically fills out and prints your forms for mailing.

I suggest to remove "free, safe, and secure".  Description needs to be
filled, too.

> +Invoke with @code{ots_gui2} rather than the usual
> @code{Run_taxsolve_GUI}.")

Note that it is possible to create a symlink to reintroduce Run_taxsolve_GUI.

> +      (license license:gpl2+))))

I agree with Josselin. Licensing is unclear. Many files do not have
a license, or are "user contributed" (under what terms?).

Would it be possible to clarify this with upstream?

Regards,
-- 
Nicolas Goaziou





reply via email to

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