[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 12:43:43 +0300

> From: David Engster <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden,  address@hidden
> 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?

reply via email to

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