savannah-hackers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Savannah-hackers] Re: flex project on savannah?


From: Mathieu Roy
Subject: [Savannah-hackers] Re: flex project on savannah?
Date: 16 Jan 2003 21:22:22 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2

"Jaime E. Villate" <address@hidden> said:

> On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 03:46:01PM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > Jeff Bailey <address@hidden> said:
> > > 
> > > http://www.gnu.org/software/flex/ already exists, and you'll be able to
> > > edit it through Savannah.
> > 
> > If flex is not a GNU package, this is a serious problem and it should
> > be fixed as soon as possible. No non-gnu package can have a url at
> > gnu.org and mailing list @gnu.org
> > 
> > RMS clearly expressed that no non-GNU package should have this kind of
> > url.
> 
> >From ftp://ftp.gnu.org/non-gnu/README :
>   "We distribute some non-GNU programs through our FTP server, or provide
>    pointers to where to get them.  We put these programs/pointers in this
>    directory since they are not developed by the GNU project. They are, of
>    course, meant for use with the GNU system."
> 
> You can see that flex and other non-GNU packages such as Maxima are there
> (http://www.gnu.org/software/maxima also exists).
> Jeff has much more experience than the two of us with the GNU project
> policies, so if he does not see a problem with
> http://www.gnu.org/software/flex/ I'm sure RMS has approved it.
> 
> Two things that I find odd is that Flex is not listed in
> http://www.gnu.org/directory/ and nethack is in ftp://ftp.gnu.org/non-gnu
> rather than ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu even though it is a GNU package.

If there is an official policy, not following it is always
problematic, as it is unclear to anybody else. 

It was said that it was a big problem that non-GNU software get a
www.gnu.org/software address, but that was acceptable as long as it
was the only solution.  

Now, it's no longer the only solution, as www.nongnu.org is set up. 

Sure, if GNU project leaders thinks it's acceptable to let thing as
they are, it's their right and discussion end. 

But, it does not change the fact that it's not following the official
position. IMHO, it's always better to follow what is said, and so
consider as problem anything that contradict the current position,
even if in the past it was perfectly understandable.


Details:

http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/savannah-hackers/2002-07/msg00678.html

Bradley M. Kuhn:

        "The GNU project made a decision a while ago that we would not
        officially 
        and publicly accept non-GNU software on savannah until one
        problem was 
        fixed.  That problem is as follows:

        Right now, the URLs "savannah.gnu.org" and
        "freesoftware.fsf.org" both 
        work.  In fact, freesoftware.fsf.org rewrites to
        savannah.gnu.org.  

        Consider

        http://freesoftware.fsf.org/projects/xmlnotes/

        that rewrites to

        http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/xmlnotes/


        This causes major confusion.  It looks like xmlnotes is part of the GNU
        project.


        As soon as you can fix it that savannah.gnu.org URLs don't
        work for 
        non-GNU packages, then we can officially and formally begin
        accepting 
        non-GNU programs on savannah. 

        Until then, the official stance is that is for GNU only." 



        Meanwhile, word of mouth spread far about savannah, and now
        there are 
        indeed tons of non-GNU packages on savannah, and people are
        likely RELYING 
        on the URL being "savannah.gnu.org".


http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/savannah-hackers/2002-07/msg00747.html

Richard Stallman:

        "We must and will proceed with the change anyway. [...]
        
        When we make this change, people "relying" on the wrong name
        will 
        simply have to change their links.  We have to keep our
        priorities 
        clear: changing the name is more important than preserving those
        links."


According to RMS and Bradley Kuhn, non-GNU project with a GNU url is a
highly problematic issue. There are maybe special cases: it has to
be said in a preeminent place so everyone does not have to guess any
implicit/private choices made. Because anyway those choice have public
consequences.



-- 
Mathieu Roy
 
 << Profile  << http://savannah.gnu.org/users/yeupou <<
 >> Homepage >> http://yeupou.coleumes.org           >>
 << GPG Key  << http://stock.coleumes.org/gpg        <<




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]