Re: NonGNU ELPA

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > > We will need to work out the details of this by doing it.
  > > What we need to do now is add packages carefully, one by one,
  > > paying attention to the arrangements we make for each one.

  > This implies that we should first contact the package maintainer telling
  > them that we are interested in adding it to GNU ELPA.  I think that
  > could be useful, as it's also an opportunity for us to inform the
  > package maintainer about our plans, to build a relationship and to avoid
  > surprising anyone.

Yes indeed.

  > I have three questions:

  > Would it be useful to prepare a template for such a communication?

Yes, definitely.

Would you like to write a draft of this, and show it to me and
the other Emacs maintainers?  Privately at first.

  > Could we prepare a canonical URL for the GNU ELPA package
  > requirements/rules outlined in a previous email by Richard?  I assume it
  > would be placed under https://elpa.nongnu.org/requirements.htm or
  > something similar, once Amin can get that hostname working.

Yes, we should do that.  It should state the full rules, which
I've posted here, adding some details from my previous message.
I'll do make that and send it to you.

  > Should we add a special file to nongnu.git for recording the kind of
  > arrangement we decide on?

Yes.  One question is where to put that information:
in one single file with an item for each package, or in a
file for each package in that package's information?

(What is the structure of the archive?
Does each package have a page?
Does each package have a subdirectory?
How are the files presented for download?)

                               I imagine that our ideal case would be number
  > one above.

Yes.

                Perhaps we would only need to note anything down when we
  > have a different arrangement from the first case.

No, that would risk misunderstandings in the harmful direction:
that we would believe the package is being taken care of by someone
else who has not in fact accepted that responsibility.

To avoid this. we should always indicate explicitly who has taken
responsibility for the updating of each package in NonGNU ELPA.



-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)