Re: Section editors or lisp?
On 2009-08-04 18:50 +0200, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> I wonder about the following:
>
> : There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the
> : override file for the following file(s):
> :
> : debian-el_30.3-1_all.deb: package says section is utils, override says lisp.
> : devscripts-el_30.3-1_all.deb: package says section is editors, override says lisp.
> : dpkg-dev-el_30.3-1_all.deb: package says section is utils, override says lisp.
> : emacs-goodies-el_30.3-1_all.deb: package says section is editors, override says lisp.
> : gnus-bonus-el_30.3-1_all.deb: package says section is news, override says lisp.
> : vm-bonus-el_30.3-1_all.deb: package says section is mail, override says lisp.
>
> Sure, the packages are written in lisp. But does the user care what
> programming language is used? The packages are not there to help
> program in lisp, they are there for reasons like assisting mail reading,
> news reading, editing, etc.
>
> Where does the inclination to classify all Emacs add-ons in section
> lisp come from? Should we?
It is coming from the FTP masters who in March declared the new archive
sections[1]. In their wisdom, they decided that every package whose
name happens to end in -el has to go to section lisp. There have been
some successful protests of maintainers of Greek language packs who
found their package unwittingly going to that section, but Emacs add-on
package maintainers apparently have to give in.
In any case, you have to discuss this with the FTP masters if you want
to see it changed.
Sven
1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2009/03/msg00010.html
Reply to: