Re: [ELPA] New package: repology.el

[Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support>]

* Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> [2021-01-07 17:38]:
> > Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 11:15:16 +0300
> > From: Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support>
> > Cc: Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support>, arthur.miller@live.com,
> >   rms@gnu.org, ams@gnu.org, dgutov@yandex.ru, ulm@gentoo.org,
> >   emacs-devel@gnu.org
> > 
> > To promote means to contribute to the progress or growth of, in one
> > definition, and in other it means to make publicity for
> > something.
> 
> repology.org does neither of these.  It provides basic information
> about each package, and doesn't state any opinion on them, FAICT.  It
> lets you judge that.  That's neither promotion nor advancement nor
> publicity, in any reasonable sense of these words relevant to this
> discussion.

I am somehow surprised how you do not see that. Maybe you understand
something different under promotion, I just got a feeling that you
understand it as something paid for to be promoted. Even if that is
the case, somebody does pay for the website, server and all efforts to
get repology.org promoted, and repology.org promotes majority of
software packages.

GNU ELPA offers listings of packages, it promotes those
packages. MELPA offers listings of packages, thus promotes them. 

If I put a single page on a website, and say anything, whatever
subject of that is a promotion. As I contribute to the progress or
growth of specific subject.

Software repository is promotion of software. Repository package
descriptions are promotion of software.

The Wiktionary describes it as "dissemination of information in order
to increase its popularity" in the context of what we speak of:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/promotion#Etymology

Let us say I am hobbiest who likes carneval masks, if I just put a
picture on a website I am promoting it. I need not sell it. But I will
put efforts to support growth of popularity of carneval masks as I
also like it.

> You are entitled to your views, but here we discuss what Emacs as a
> project should do.  That cannot be based on your or mine personal
> views.

Of course yes. I look at it only from GNU as free software project and
if it is aligned to GNU purposes. I did not even know that reference
to such already exists in GNU coding standards.

In general I am surprised that some people like or wish to get access
to descriptions of non-free software packages through GNU ELPA. Why
don't they put it in MELPA and be satisfied right there?