GNU bug report logs -
#56300
[PATCH] gnu: Added breeze-gtk package.
Previous Next
Reported by: Samuel Fadel <samuel <at> nihil.ws>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 15:45:02 UTC
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Merged with 56299,
56321
Done: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 56300 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 56300 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.
Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.
Report forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#56300
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Wed, 29 Jun 2022 15:45:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Acknowledgement sent
to
Samuel Fadel <samuel <at> nihil.ws>
:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
.
(Wed, 29 Jun 2022 15:45:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
(I tried sending this message earlier today and had some issues. I
apologize in advance if both were successful.)
Some people like when GTK and Qt programs to have a consistent look. I
noticed the GTK port of the Breeze theme was missing from the repos, so
this is adding it.
I am unsure about the licensing as their current repo mentions both the
LGPL 2.1 and BSD 3-clause. How should I set it properly? Is just LGPL
2.1 enough?
---
gnu/packages/kde-plasma.scm | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
diff --git a/gnu/packages/kde-plasma.scm b/gnu/packages/kde-plasma.scm
index 5621d8ea35..558efe0562 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/kde-plasma.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/kde-plasma.scm
@@ -83,6 +83,31 @@ (define-public breeze
the Plasma Desktop. Breeze is the default theme for the KDE Plasma desktop.")
(license license:gpl2+)))
+(define-public breeze-gtk
+ (package
+ (name "breeze-gtk")
+ (version "5.19.5")
+ (source (origin
+ (method url-fetch)
+ (uri (string-append "mirror://kde/stable/plasma/" version "/"
+ name "-" version ".tar.xz"))
+ (sha256
+ (base32
+ "1j2nq9yw1ragmgwrz9f6ca4ifpi86qv1bbprdgd2qm2yh7vb44sj"))))
+ (build-system qt-build-system)
+ (arguments
+ `(#:phases
+ (modify-phases %standard-phases
+ (delete 'check)))) ; Test phase not defined
+ (native-inputs
+ (list breeze extra-cmake-modules sassc python python-pycairo))
+ (home-page "https://invent.kde.org/plasma/breeze")
+ (synopsis "Default KDE Plasma theme (GTK+ port)")
+ (description "GTK+ port of the Breeze visual style for the Plasma Desktop.
+Breeze is the default theme for the KDE Plasma desktop.")
+ (license license:lgpl2.1)))
+
+
(define-public kdecoration
(package
(name "kdecoration")
[ 2-line signature. Click/Enter to show. ]
--
2.36.1
-------------------- End of forwarded message --------------------
Merged 56299 56300.
Request was from
Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>
to
control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
.
(Wed, 29 Jun 2022 17:52:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#56300
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Wed, 29 Jun 2022 18:22:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #10 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Re: the licence: you could specify only lgpl2.1 as that's the result of combining lgpl2.1 with bsd-3, but you can also specify both in a (list ...) with comments next to each one to explain what applies to which file(s).
I prefer the latter but neither is wrong.
Kind regards,
T G-R
Sent on the go. Excuse or enjoy my brevity.
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#56300
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Wed, 29 Jun 2022 18:22:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#56300
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Tue, 05 Jul 2022 14:08:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #16 received at 56300 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi Samuel,
On 2022-07-05 15:45, Samuel Fadel wrote:
> I prepared a new patch, but accidentally submitted it as a new issue on
> its own (id 56321). Should I merge it here or do I merge this older one
> there?
There's no difference (but thanks for asking). Merging is symmetric,
order doesn't matter, both bugs become synonymous[0].
Kind regards,
T G-R
Sent from a Web browser. Excuse or enjoy my brevity.
[0]: https://debbugs.gnu.org/server-control.html
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#56300
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Tue, 05 Jul 2022 15:17:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #19 received at 56300 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi Tobias,
Tobias Geerinckx-Rice (2022-06-29 18:21 +0000):
> Re: the licence: you could specify only lgpl2.1 as that's the result
> of combining lgpl2.1 with bsd-3, but you can also specify both in a
> (list ...) with comments next to each one to explain what applies to
> which file(s).
I prepared a new patch, but accidentally submitted it as a new issue on
its own (id 56321). Should I merge it here or do I merge this older one
there?
Best,
Samuel
bug archived.
Request was from
Debbugs Internal Request <help-debbugs <at> gnu.org>
to
internal_control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
.
(Wed, 10 Aug 2022 11:24:04 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
This bug report was last modified 1 year and 259 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.