Re: non-gnu elpa issue tracking

[Tim Cross]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>> I'm not sure I get the subtle difference you seem to be referring to. From
>> my simple end user perspective, I find a package in the list of packages by
>> running M-x list-packages , for example, I have the following in the
>> current list -
>>
>>  ack                1.10          available  gnu        interface to
>> ack-like tools
>>
>> When I move to that line and hit enter, the following window pops up,
>> providing details about this package
>>
>> Package ack is available.
>>
>>      Status: Available from gnu -- Install
>>     Archive: gnu
>>     Version: 1.10
>>     Summary: interface to ack-like tools
>>    Homepage: https://github.com/leoliu/ack-el
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> The subtle difference is that this link doesn't come from
> `externals-list` but from elsewhere.  We just include it as
> a convenience for the end user and for the package maintainer, not as
> something we use (the one we use is the one in `externals-list` and we
> only use it with Git so we could change it from `https://...` to
> `git://...`).
>
> This said, I'm not sure exactly what would be the benefit of removing
> this link: I don't think it would convince the package's maintainers to
> move to some other hosting platform, and I don't think it would prevent
> users from finding that the official homepage is on Github.
>
> Maybe we could adorn the link with some warning text, OTOH (and maybe
> refrain from making the URL into a hyperlink).  Is that what you had
> in mind?
>

I don't think any of those suggestions are worth the overhead and
additional complexity. The only thing which probably could be done is
to accept that despite the philosophical and ethical issues associated
with github, it is now a platform which is used as a code repository for
GNU packages and adjust messaging accordingly.

Others will disagree, but for me, statements like the one Richard made
which I responded to, while factually correct are misleading. They are
designed to try and make it look as if what the project is doing is
ethically 'clean'. It isn't. The project, for many complex and quite
justifiable reasons, is benefiting from a platform which it considers
undermines the core philosophical goals of software freedom and should
be open and up-front about this.

--
Tim Cross