GNU bug report logs - #52238
[PATCH] gnu: Add MEGA SDK

Previous Next

Full log

Message #11 received at 52238 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jaft <jaft.r <at> outlook.com>
To: "52238 <at> debbugs.gnu.org" <52238 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>, 
 Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add MEGA SDK
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2021 22:30:55 +0000 (UTC)

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

> On Monday, December 6, 2021, 01:53:09 PM CST, Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com> wrote: 
>
>
>
>
>
> Am Donnerstag, den 02.12.2021, 06:32 +0000 schrieb Jaft:
> > * gnu/packages/mega.scm (mega-sdk):Add MEGA SDK
> Should be "New variable."

Which part should be "New variable"? "* gnu/packages/mega.scm (mega-sdk): New variable"? Or the whole line? "* New variable"?

> > The SDK is a dependency of MEGAsync so I thought to make a new file
> > since there's multiple packages that are MEGA related and then I
> > discovered that the megacmd package exists; is it better for this to
> > be placed in sync.scm, next to megacmd?
> Sync is good.  If existing Mega packages use the SDK, try to unbundle
> them.

Makes sense; megatools doesn't seem to rely on it but megacmd pulls from git recursively since the SDK repo.'s setup as a module for it so I've adjusted that definition to make use of the SDK, now.

> > ---
> I don't know if I told you that yet, but comments ought to go below
> this line.

Mmm, I think you did but I must've misunderstood as I thought you were saying the opposite; noted and I'll do it the other way, going forward.

> > +    (package
> > +      (name "mega-sdk")
> > +      (version version)
> There's no reason to let-bind version if you're just going to assign it
> here anyway.

It hadn't been clear to me that the macro functions in that fashion; I've removed the use of let.

> > +      (arguments `(#:tests? #f))
> Never leave #:tests? #f uncommented.

Makes sense; that's been revised.

> > +      (home-page "https://mega.nz/sdk")
> > +      (synopsis "SDK for the MEGA service, offered by MEGA Limited")
> Sponsored by RAID: Shadow Legends.

I don't understand what this is communicating.

> Given the megacli command, what's the relation to existing MEGA
> packages, particularly megacmd?
>
> Cheers

Noted above (and addressed in the new patch).

It seems like I'll likely have to make further changes but I've attached what I have for the patch, thus far, just to keep track of what changes have been made.

[mega-sdk.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.