From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: ELPA policy Date: Sat, 09 May 2020 12:43:43 +0300 Message-ID: <831rnth29c.fsf@gnu.org> References: <0c88192c-3c33-46ed-95cb-b4c6928016e3@default> <83zhaij4qn.fsf@gnu.org> <835zd6ihns.fsf@gnu.org> <83h7wphblf.fsf@gnu.org> <875zd57e7e.fsf@randomsample> <837dxlh77o.fsf@gnu.org> <871rnt7cbd.fsf@randomsample> <834ksph5ss.fsf@gnu.org> <87wo5l5whg.fsf@randomsample> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="94992"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Engster Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat May 09 11:44:34 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 1jXM26-000Oce-LE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 09 May 2020 11:44:34 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50274 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jXM25-0005v8-NQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 09 May 2020 05:44:33 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58962) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jXM1T-0005Vn-Hv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 May 2020 05:43:55 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:48770) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jXM1R-0003hm-Qj; Sat, 09 May 2020 05:43:53 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=4592 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jXM1Q-00045t-MC; Sat, 09 May 2020 05:43:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87wo5l5whg.fsf@randomsample> (message from David Engster on Sat, 09 May 2020 10:43:55 +0200) 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:249380 Archived-At: > From: David Engster > Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sat, 09 May 2020 10:43:55 +0200 > > > If we are going to drop requirements, then what will distinguish ELPA > > from MELPA? And what's the problem with having non-core packages > > available through MELPA, anyway? why do we need to have them in ELPA? > > In principal, I agree with you. The problem is mainly Richard's stance > on this issue, which says that we must not recommend packages which are > not in Emacs or GNU ELPA, but that we should rather re-implement them. I > think that's a terrible waste. Is this only about "recommending" or not "recommending" a package? Is this why we created GNU ELPA and invest non-trivial amount of effort in maintaining and developing it? I very much hope there's more to it than just that. I could understand if you'd say "use" instead of "recommend", i.e. have code in Emacs, which, if a package is installed, would use it. That'd actually have the package's name in our sources, and would constitute some kind of "endorsement". But as long as we don't use any of those packages, why should we care what other people like or don't like?