From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jean Louis Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [ELPA] New package: repology.el Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 18:21:04 +0300 Message-ID: References: <6193374b-a60d-ba82-91b5-afdede18e3bb@yandex.ru> <72871d3a-3b6a-d6fd-01cc-4248f817923c@yandex.ru> <801f93f3-8c1f-5f5f-6351-e1169bc309ae@yandex.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="4856"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Mutt/2.0 (3d08634) (2020-11-07) Cc: ulm@gentoo.org, ams@gnu.org, Dmitry Gutov , Richard Stallman , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Arthur Miller Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 06 16:24:02 2021 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 1kxAfK-00018j-KS for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 16:24:02 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57710 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kxAfJ-0005jQ-Dl for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 10:24:01 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:33704) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kxAdG-0004Mp-0e for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 10:21:54 -0500 Original-Received: from stw1.rcdrun.com ([217.170.207.13]:35673) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kxAdD-0008FC-Gg; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 10:21:53 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([::ffff:41.210.154.95]) (AUTH: PLAIN securesender, TLS: TLS1.2,256bits,ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) by stw1.rcdrun.com with ESMTPSA id 0000000000295452.000000005FF5D58B.00005933; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 08:21:47 -0700 Mail-Followup-To: Arthur Miller , Richard Stallman , ams@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, ulm@gentoo.org, Dmitry Gutov Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=217.170.207.13; envelope-from=bugs@gnu.support; helo=stw1.rcdrun.com X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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:262600 Archived-At: * Arthur Miller [2021-01-06 18:00]: > As I see, it says "non-free", so what is the problem? Maybe you should review the fact that Debian does designate their non-free repository but that repology.el package will show all other repositories with non-free software, not being designated as non-free by any manner. So your perception does not come from practical and personal use of that software, rather from my example, that was not exhaustive. Example with etoys package, as classified non-free in Debian will not be shown as non-free in Ubuntu: >From repology.el output: Ubuntu 12.04 etoys 4.0.2340 multiverse/games jredrejo@debian.org holger@debian.org because the 4th column is name of repository in repology. It need not say "non-free" at all. When clicking on that entry above, user finds following: repo ubuntu_12_04 subrepo precise/multiverse srcname etoys visiblename etoys version 4.0.2340 maintainers jredrejo@debian.org holger@debian.org categories multiverse/games status outdated origversion 4.0.2340-1 > I think it is rather informative to see if a piece of software is free > or not free, that way I can at least avoid non-free ones. As from example above, it does not says nothing about the license at all and thus does not serve to you as user to "recognize if software is free or not-free". That is why you should make better your personal research. > Are we now dogmatically religious where non-free software is forbidden > to even be mentioned as non-free? That smells to me as a slippery slope > into dogmatism and absolutism. GNU.org website does not offer directories of various software where plethora of non-free software package descriptions can be found, researched, and inspected. Why should Emacs do that? It is not aligned with overall goals of GNU. It is matter of freedom and liberty and teaching people free software and not religion. > Is there free-speach if people are not allowed to speak freely about > some subject(s) like mentioning non-free software? That is absolutely not subject of repology.el package. It should be clear that everybody is free to speak about anything. It is not subject of this discussion. GNU is project about free software. It should not offer access to users to search, verify, find references to non-free software. Just think little about that, bakery is about baking bread, it should not (not normally) offer soaps on the bread shelves. Normally it will also not offer milk on the same shelves. Diary factories normally do not produce alcohol in their same factories. GNU.org is about free software, it is not about giving references to non-free software. Yet many non-free software are mentioned on GNU.org website and references are given to free software with similar functionality. If a package like repology.el would say this software ABC is non-free software, which you may replace by using this XYZ free software, that would be useful. If it only offers queries and results from a software database without distinction or without supporting GNU purposes, then it should not be in GNU ELPA. By free speech, it can be on any other server. Why not. > I think the problem for you is that you see that list as a > "recommendation list". If you instead interpret it as a "black > list", than having list of non-free software becomes a useful > listing in terms of things to avoid :-). I have no problem with anything. If it comes in GNU ELPA, I will denounce the package on my website and say why it should not be there, even if it is there. My opinions are personal and not representative of GNU project. Jean