[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: non-gnu elpa issue tracking
From: |
Stefan Kangas |
Subject: |
Re: non-gnu elpa issue tracking |
Date: |
Wed, 9 Dec 2020 10:58:01 -0600 |
Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@gmx.com> writes:
> I've read sumaries of Richard Stallman's presentation about the
> proposed, and in comparing it with Stefan Monnier's in-progress web
> interface, have several suggestions:
>
> 1) License disclosure: The summaries indicate that RMS is open to having
> the repository host packages bearing *any* free license, but there
> may be users who are pickier, so a package's license should be
> disclosed prominently on the listing page and the package detail
> page;
Are there any packages out there that don't use the GPL? Could you
point us to some examples?
> 2) The acceptance or candidacy process for each package should be
> documented in some discrete method. Melpa does this using github's
> pull request feature, which documents the entire conversation related
> to the process of accepting a package.
Could you be more specific? Do you mean that we should document it
somewhere, or do you mean something else?
> 3) After a package is initially accepted to the repository, the
> summaries of Richard Stallman's presentation indicate that subsequent
> commits or releases may be rejected or modified. That record should
> also be documented. Debian does this using its own package tracking
> software.
>
> Here's an example of it in action (for the package 'bash'):
> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/bash
>
> It's source code is available on its 'salsa' repository (gitlab?):
> https://salsa.debian.org/qa/distro-tracker
>
> Debian's experience and the automation of its infrastructure might be
> useful to adopt in-toto even if its not an absolutely perfect match
> because it's a turnkey solution and is actively maintained (eg. they
> may accept feature requests).
"Debian's infrastructure" is massive and has many moving parts.
Do you suggest that we should adopt all of that wholesale?
> 4) There's no link on the repository page[1] to the software being used
> to generate it, and the forge at which it is being developed. Having
> that would make the infrastructure friendlier for pull-requests, bug
> reports, and other feedback.
I assume that there will be a landing page similar to the one on
elpa.gnu.org.
Re: non-gnu elpa issue tracking, Jean Louis, 2020/12/09