GNU bug report logs - #71924
31.0.50; elpa.gnu.org has misleading link to bbdb source code

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Roland Winkler <winkler <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>, 71924 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Jules Tamagnan <jtamagnan <at> gmail.com>
Subject: bug#71924: 31.0.50; elpa.gnu.org has misleading link to bbdb source code
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2025 22:35:07 -0400

>> Roland, what do you think?
>
> Stefan, I think you have given a fair account from what I can tell.
> When BBDB became available via GNU Elpa, part of the reason to keep BBDB
> also at savannah was that back then this simplified packaging BBDB for
> debian (and maybe also other distros).  But the BBDB maintainer for
> debian has confirmed to me that for debian this is no issue anymore.
> Debian can package BBDB either way.  And yes, it will certainly simplify
> development and maintenance of BBDB if there is only one "official
> source" for it (at GNU Elpa).

[ That matches AUCTeX's experience.  ]

> So I have asked on the BBDB mailing list
> whether there are still any reasons to also have the BBDB repository at
> NonGNU Savannah or whether this repository can be put to rest.  I do not
> expect to receive serious objections, but you never know.  I'll wait
> some time so that others can respond.
>
> (I assume nothing at Savannah needs to be deleted for this.  The git
> repository documents the history of BBDB since the early days of BBDB.
> But one can put a note that development of BBDB now only happens at GNU
> Elpa.)

Note that the development could still very well happen over at the
`nongnu.git` repository instead of `elpa.git`.  The main issue is the
*content* of the branch on which development takes place.  Currently the
content over at `nongnu.git` is not appropriate for GNU ELPA, which is
why you have to first "massage" it and then push it to `elpa.git`.
But if you changed that content to match what GNU ELPA needs, then GNU
ELPA could automatically track the code over at `nongnu.git` and you
could keep doing the development over there.

The main difference between the two scenarios is one of administrative
hurdles (e.g. you can easily add/remove commit rights to contributors over
at the `nongnu.git` whereas only Emacs maintainers can do that on
`elpa.git`).

In any case, let me know if there's something I can do to help,


        Stefan

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.