Re: Can citeproc be installed without using MELPA? (was: @string abbreviation in bib file not honored in (basic) org-cite)
Dear All, On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 at 04:05, Ihor Radchenko wrote: > >> Then, I am wondering if parsebib can be added to ELPA or at least > >> non-GNU ELPA. The same can be said for all other dependencies of > >> citeproc.el and for citeproc itself. > non-GNU ELPA is also fine. The idea is to avoid asking users to add > extra package repo configuration. Since the dash library, which is heavily used in citeproc-el, has been added to GNU ELPA, if parsebib also becomes available in non-GNU ELPA then I don't so any serious problem with adding citeproc-el to the latter as well -- the use of the "s" string processing library would still need to be eliminated but this would require only relatively minor changes. best wishes, András
Re: Can citeproc be installed without using MELPA? (was: @string abbreviation in bib file not honored in (basic) org-cite)
Joost Kremers writes: >>> looking into the source code (parsebib.el), the library seems to be >>> under a BSD-type license. > > Yes, it is. It's a single file and the license is at the top. I can add a > separate license file if that's necessary. It is not required. Just a bit confusing - Github is only able to detect license info when you have a dedicated license file. Hence, Github currently treats your repo as unlicensed - no license info is listed in the "Info" sidebar. >> Then, I am wondering if parsebib can be added to ELPA or at least >> non-GNU ELPA. The same can be said for all other dependencies of >> citeproc.el and for citeproc itself. > > I'd have no problem if it were added to non-GNU ELPA. GNU ELPA is a little > difficult because I don't have a copyright assignment on file. (It's proven a > little difficult to get someone in the company to sign the corporate > waiver...) non-GNU ELPA is also fine. The idea is to avoid asking users to add extra package repo configuration. It will be the best if M-x package-install just works. ELPA and non-GNU ELPA should be available by default in newer Emacs versions. Best, Ihor
Re: Can citeproc be installed without using MELPA? (was: @string abbreviation in bib file not honored in (basic) org-cite)
On Sun, Jul 10 2022, Ihor Radchenko wrote: > András Simonyi writes: > >>> The problem with parsebib is that it does not even have license >>> (I do not see any in https://github.com/joostkremers/parsebib). If >>> parsebib were a part of Emacs core or at least a part of ELPA, we would >>> also be able to use it in Org core. >> >> looking into the source code (parsebib.el), the library seems to be >> under a BSD-type license. Yes, it is. It's a single file and the license is at the top. I can add a separate license file if that's necessary. > Then, I am wondering if parsebib can be added to ELPA or at least > non-GNU ELPA. The same can be said for all other dependencies of > citeproc.el and for citeproc itself. I'd have no problem if it were added to non-GNU ELPA. GNU ELPA is a little difficult because I don't have a copyright assignment on file. (It's proven a little difficult to get someone in the company to sign the corporate waiver...) -- Joost Kremers Life has its moments
Can citeproc be installed without using MELPA? (was: @string abbreviation in bib file not honored in (basic) org-cite)
András Simonyi writes: >> The problem with parsebib is that it does not even have license >> (I do not see any in https://github.com/joostkremers/parsebib). If >> parsebib were a part of Emacs core or at least a part of ELPA, we would >> also be able to use it in Org core. > > looking into the source code (parsebib.el), the library seems to be > under a BSD-type license. Then, I am wondering if parsebib can be added to ELPA or at least non-GNU ELPA. The same can be said for all other dependencies of citeproc.el and for citeproc itself. Ideally, users should not need to add non-default package repos just to add support for CSL in Org. Best, Ihor
