GNU bug report logs - #57034
[PATCH] gnu: packages: Add miniz.

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com>
To: "(" <paren <at> disroot.org>, 57034 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [bug#57034] [PATCH] gnu: packages: Add miniz.
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2022 19:19:57 +0200

Am Sonntag, dem 07.08.2022 um 17:59 +0100 schrieb (:
> On Sun Aug 7, 2022 at 5:42 PM BST, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote:
> > last time I checked, the template was "gnu: Add PACKAGE", not "gnu:
> > packages: Add PACKAGE."
> Okay, I'll remember that for next time :)
> 
> > And there might still be many more until a release.  I don't think
> > using untagged commits "just because" if the latest release is
> > barely a
> > year old is a good idea.
> 
> > > +  (let ((commit "be92575500f71dfb5ac7b0c5bb47b6e736c23039")
> > > +        (revision "0"))
> > > +    (package
> > > +     (name "miniz")
> > > +     (version (git-version "2.2.0" revision commit))
> > > +     (source (origin
> > > +              (method git-fetch)
> > > +              (uri (git-reference
> > > +                    (url "https://github.com/richgel999/miniz")
> > > +                    (commit commit)))
> > > +              (file-name (git-file-name name version))
> > > +              (sha256
> > > +               (base32
> > > +               
> > > "0w42vagcv4b0hcf0jk7vamrcpmw62dblx9856j98msdfm3qv1xzi"))))
> > > +     (build-system cmake-build-system)
> > > +     (arguments
> > > +      (list #:configure-flags
> > > +            #~(list "-DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=ON")
> > > +            ;; No test target.
> > > +            #:tests? #f))
> > There is a test script you could use.
> It doesn't work; I tried it.
> 
> > > +      "@code{miniz} is a small, simple alternative to the
> > > @code{zlib}
> > > +data compression library for manipulating zlib, DEFLATE, PNG,
> > > and
> > > ZIP
> > > +files from C.")
> > Avoid marketing terms :)
> Do 'small' and 'simple' count as marketing terms? 'smaller than zlib'
> is objective fact, and 'simpler than zlib' is subjective but pretty
> obvious. Maybe I could rewrite it to say 'smaller, simpler
> alternative'
> instead?
"subjective, but pretty obvious", how so?  I think the fact that it
doesn't have its own documentation and you need to instead refer to
zlib kinda defeats that point.  Several of its README claims seem
either outdated already (the 550 lines one for example), or difficult
to guarantee forever.  I think the only claim we can reasonably make is
that it is an alternative zlib implementation, and that it supports
zlib, deflate, png and zip.

Cheers

Previous Next

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