[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [ELPA] New package: repology.el

From: Jean Louis
Subject: Re: [ELPA] New package: repology.el
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 23:31:47 +0300
User-agent: Mutt/2.0 (3d08634) (2020-11-07)

* Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> [2021-01-07 23:01]:
> > Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 22:38:15 +0300
> > From: Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support>
> > Cc: arthur.miller@live.com, rms@gnu.org, ams@gnu.org,
> >   dgutov@yandex.ru, ulm@gentoo.org, emacs-tangents@gnu.org
> > 
> > Software repository is promotion of software.
> repostory.org is not a repository of software.  It is a list of
> software.

Maybe you meant repology.org is not a repository. Sure. But I meant
that true repository such as Debian's or Trisquel's repository is

On the other hand when one server provides directory of hyperlinks, it
may not be repository but it is index or directory and search engine
in same time that points to software. In particular I can find
hyperlinks from repology.org

Like here:

I can find hyperlinks to Opera website

> > 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:
> Where do you see the "in order to increase its popularity" part?  That
> would mean to say something about the non-free packages that would
> represent them as beneficial or better than others or worthy of
> installing and using.  I see none of that.

I see that repology.org does not make any distinction and it cannot do
that easily technically. So it does not make neither free software nor
proprietary better or worse by any reasons. And that is the problem.

> > In general I am surprised that some people like or wish to get access
> > to descriptions of non-free software packages through GNU ELPA.
> GNU ELPA is not the issue here.  The issue here is total rejection of
> software that dares to provide information about software packages
> which might not be Free Software.  I explained why finding such
> information is important to me in my role as a GNU maintainer.

I am only talking about GNU ELPA and if repology.org should be in GNU
ELPA as that way we would influence millions of people by giving them
references to non-free software. It would speak badly of GNU project.

But that you use the package yourself, that is freedom of choice.


reply via email to

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