From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Adding advisory notification for non-ELPA package.el downloads Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 20:40:43 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87h8yk6n1b.fsf@phil.uni-goettingen.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1499820113 32335 195.159.176.226 (12 Jul 2017 00:41:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 00:41:53 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jul 12 02:41:49 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dV5is-00082g-S3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 02:41:46 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49531 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dV5iw-0006kT-QX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 20:41:50 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57365) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dV5i9-0006ij-9T for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 20:41:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dV5i4-0007P3-De for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 20:41:01 -0400 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=50154 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dV5i4-0007NC-6l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 20:40:56 -0400 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dV5hw-0005AC-RF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 02:40:48 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 34 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:CTT8y91BgIPk6Lt7GGUCPmt3++A= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:216516 Archived-At: > ELPA managers, does the act of installing directly into ELPA give us > an opportunity to make sure something is being handled right? I think the difference is pretty significant, yes. If we pull from other repositories: - maintainers of the package will not be reminded that the package is also in GNU ELPA (and should hence adhere to a copyright assignment policy). - While the repository may be under the sole control of the package maintainer when the package is added to GNU ELPA, that can and will evolve over time, completely outside of our control. - There is no easy way for us (Emacs maintainers) to install fixes to adapt to changes in Emacs. More specifically, it needs to be done by hand package-by-package, by submitting a patch and hoping the upstream maintainer is still listening. - Handling old unmaintained packages is more trouble. - We won't get elpa-diffs email, where we have the opportunity to give advice on coding style and have a minimum amount of review of the code we end up distributing. Basically it would turn GNU ELPA into a pure distribution site, with very little control over what we distribute, including the copyright status of what we distribute. The only real difference with MELPA would be that we could check that each file comes with the proper GPLv3+ blurb. Not sure if it would be worth the trouble. Stefan