[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ELPA policy

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: ELPA policy
Date: Sat, 09 May 2020 11:27:15 +0300

> From: David Engster <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden,  address@hidden
> Date: Sat, 09 May 2020 10:16:38 +0200
> You are right that it will be difficult if we decide a package should
> become "core" and currently does not adhere to the Emacs coding style,
> but frankly, we should be more worried that this ship has already sailed
> far away. Many packages which are absolutely essential for a modern
> programmer's editor are already only available through MELPA.

Why is that a problem?  We can never do anything to prevent people
from concocting whatever packages they want and making them available
for others.  Nor do I think we should: this is, after all, Free
Software: people should be free to choose whatever software they like
that does the job for them.  We can never control that, and we
shouldn't try.

> I also fully agree with Stefan that we should make it possible for
> packages that have non-FSF copyright to be included. Of course these
> packages could never become "core", but having them installable
> throught GNU ELPA would be the next best thing.

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?

This all goes back to my confusion about the relation between ELPA and
Emacs, something I thought I understood, but now I conclude that I

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]