"Thomas S. Dye" <[email protected]> writes: > Ihor Radchenko <[email protected]> writes: >> Christian Moe <[email protected]> writes: >>> To my mind, this suggests that we /should/ add a section listing the >>> two GNU ELPA packages [...]
>> +1 for listing packages that have documentation on WORG. Although we >> may need to check if that documentation is up-to-date, especially for >> packages that used to be in org-contrib. Maybe contact the >> maintainers to double-check. > +1. I can add a table for the two GNU Elpa languages, and correct the > org-contrib table. Also, I'll contact maintainers if I have > questions. Thanks! Looks good. (I see it hasn't built yet; I hope that clears up.) >>> Meanwhile, there are some 80 ob-*.el packages on Melpa, from the >>> fairly obscure to Rust and PHP. Should we list them as well? It wouldn't be >>> a >>> problem, but it would need to be updated every now and then, and it >>> wouldn't add value to what people can already do with list-packages [...] >> There gotta be a way to do it programmatically I think. [...] > I'm against listing the Melpa packages. > There is the maintenance issue and the effort to program a solution, > and my gut feeling is that no one is likely to write documentation so > their package can be advertised on Worg. My $0.02. We can cross that bridge when someone offers documentation. (I'll consider contacting maintainers to invite them to do that, at least for some of the more popular languages -- but that's long-term, not a priority.) Regards, Christian
