From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Dmitry Gutov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: What is GNU ELPA? Date: Sat, 16 May 2020 23:24:58 +0300 Message-ID: <593dc5af-b447-7a05-aab4-7ce6a2d80a3c@yandex.ru> References: <35DBF02E-44D7-41E5-A217-7D6EC84ED221@icloud.com> <07d7ff5d-dd57-00e7-933f-3188d57d6185@yandex.ru> <96f718b4-8ba9-7b9a-f940-7070e4a9a424@yandex.ru> <83sgg13cek.fsf@gnu.org> <096d8f50-3568-8f01-610f-65199c583358@yandex.ru> <83lflt1flx.fsf@gnu.org> <83k11cc54t.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="95935"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 Cc: rms@gnu.org, joostkremers@fastmail.fm, Emacs-devel@gnu.org, ams@gnu.org, pcr910303@icloud.com, phillip.lord@russet.org.uk To: Eli Zaretskii , Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat May 16 22:26:29 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ja3O8-000Ope-1t for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 16 May 2020 22:26:28 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52004 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ja3O7-0000MF-0N for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 16 May 2020 16:26:27 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:37206) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ja3Mm-0007ex-7e for Emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 May 2020 16:25:04 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-wr1-x42c.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::42c]:39232) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ja3Ml-0006dt-8h; Sat, 16 May 2020 16:25:03 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-wr1-x42c.google.com with SMTP id l18so7335813wrn.6; Sat, 16 May 2020 13:25:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=mG0SIiwoAs4Nq7NP9BEElkqt3AGzd/fe8vRuMANhvQ0=; b=Mv3Jebiap/cHpDm8Sp9ZgpzyU2NI6OPzM9q+wurSIhkw44V7jyrhvXyzEcPBWRdWpb T8u8oMaiijpG3ZUpA9vZzpQ7VC3xEHVkzLavadOokyGmru54kmIPyjQX4xvpfymSv3zF 34vgyhYSPGufRy93v9qtgyVKGSDtGaEGeQwHY1NVMEwxM1FqXwUmYT/Bm7vJVyymKuZm YrOBxG+cm/1SthBGNWDoWdP08Hd+BgmB7C4yJI0ZuMdKK8R6Mj3wtjiNxfo90DbZ38wh PVU0D+9hBwEuc25NHy1ioFfNKjAGFD5jJNoK5CFntsR63W/5MGLnpepwvXLrXj7D5tCy sYAQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=mG0SIiwoAs4Nq7NP9BEElkqt3AGzd/fe8vRuMANhvQ0=; b=i46t6XGIWUCbk3M+FTdITCnaXu2HnvEBAiAWtAgfHotRCao2X/O8mk1NO+FaavodTU dMimmI2zDaIt+aZrpC9nWZGAkTnUiRWO+OsFPlYcilzCMd4tktdciQ251LZ26Z6DvVQB jo/VcvT/Ccz4PKrzfZzo/uh1QsiGd4AliF/y69dHIDjQ+acaiT6Xt5d+NexVm4SrQ1Wn ee5cBFO0cIpNGv6lU4FroC97Ut4SBdpAZDE+sKZWdIpG4p64uJK0EhK769i/4ZlVNw12 NQDRcgoG6p6bLQtine3b0xZ9mxb6DN6aelZ9EVLDbZRNUlx+5rnH53e9leBbEM5SWXWA jCJQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530C0qNo60XQi/iwgDWirkBx3qEYoQtlTakOkDtB/TrM62jUX/ga 3NAG8IK8Vi2bsxPkSnCZZvA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy4iaB7xZHLu2PdmAwqh2ivLoQ2vFkEut9Fdt/akWosgcHANFGsrdcR8CKlIT458qFqfBGS2A== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:5404:: with SMTP id g4mr10885023wrv.310.1589660701031; Sat, 16 May 2020 13:25:01 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.0.3] ([66.205.73.129]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id p10sm10041169wra.78.2020.05.16.13.24.59 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 16 May 2020 13:25:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <83k11cc54t.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Language: en-US Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::42c; envelope-from=raaahh@gmail.com; helo=mail-wr1-x42c.google.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: No matching host in p0f cache. That's all we know. X-Spam_score_int: -17 X-Spam_score: -1.8 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:250524 Archived-At: Hi Eli, On 16.05.2020 17:43, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> - More generally give more freedom to the authors (many authors are >> *not* interested in having their code in emacs.git because of the >> extra constraints that it implies). >> >> The last two problems *also* affect GNU ELPA, ironically, tho to >> a lesser extent. > > I'm sorry to say, but I feel we are trying to retroactively invent > reasons to justify the actual situation and the goals that got shifted > from their original. As the description of ELPA shows, the original > goal was to have an extension of Emacs that is separate for minor > technical reasons. You seem to be trying to produce logical rules for governing ELPA based on two lines from the manual written by Glenn likely on a whim 4 years after GNU ELPA was created. And does it really matter why it was created originally? Perhaps it was made to fight forest fires or raise awareness about the surveillance state. Does that really matter now, 10 years later? GNU ELPA is where it is because it turned out useful enough for both sides (users and package authors) that the latter contributed a considerable number of packages, and a significant fraction of them continues to be updated. Making the situation worse for either side can break the balance, and there will be fewer updates, as a result it will be less useful for the users, and in the end we could simply be forced to write it off as a failure. The current situation is, it is okay-ish for the authors (for reasons Stefan described), though probably not ideal for minor technical reasons. As well a copyright assignment reasons, but that acts as a filter. This filter, however, makes it not great for the users, because the result is, we provide less functionality out-of-the-box. Hopefully I don't have to explain why this is a problem. On the authors' side, however, if you decide to dispense with some of the reasons people contribute to GNU ELPA, that can also lead to fewer packages in there, and the result for the users is predictable.