Re: ELPA policy

[David Engster]

>> From: David Engster <address@hidden>
>> Cc: address@hidden,  address@hidden
>> Date: Sat, 09 May 2020 10:16:38 +0200
>> 
>> You are right that it will be difficult if we decide a package should
>> become "core" and currently does not adhere to the Emacs coding style,
>> but frankly, we should be more worried that this ship has already sailed
>> far away. Many packages which are absolutely essential for a modern
>> programmer's editor are already only available through MELPA.
>
> Why is that a problem?  We can never do anything to prevent people
> from concocting whatever packages they want and making them available
> for others.  Nor do I think we should: this is, after all, Free
> Software: people should be free to choose whatever software they like
> that does the job for them.  We can never control that, and we
> shouldn't try.
>
>> I also fully agree with Stefan that we should make it possible for
>> packages that have non-FSF copyright to be included. Of course these
>> packages could never become "core", but having them installable
>> throught GNU ELPA would be the next best thing.
>
> 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.

-David