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. 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.