Talk:List of GNU packages
|
Over time, we should try to turn this into a table which contains a column for the name of the package, a description, a launch date, the current version, the maintainer(s) the license (GPL or LGPL), and the various platforms onto which the program(s) officially run.
What do you think? -- Mathieugp 15:31, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Should this page not be List of official GNU packages? This would remove the ambiguity that it might be a list of packages that run on GNU; incidentally is there on of those? Could also be List of FSF Packages but I think the FSF likes to call their packages "official GNU packages".
Also the last comment seems like a good idea. --Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley 16:42, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
Renaming
I agree that we need to distinguish between software packages that were made for (or runs on) the GNU OS, and software packages that make up the GNU OS itself. I am not sure what is the best way to achieve that.
Maybe if we had a separate List of GNU-compatible packages it would become clearer what this list is about?
What do you think? I do not object to the use of the term "official", but I could not find the phrase "official GNU packages" anywhere on the FSF site. -- Mathieugp 20:14, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Version, maintainer, license etc
I propose this layout for discussion:
Name | Description | Launch Date * | Current stable version | Current development version | Original Developer(s) | Current Maintainer(s) | License(s) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Emacs | Extensible, real-time editor | ? | 21.3 | ? | Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> | Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> | GPL |
-- * Date the software development project started.
Anything else?
-- Mathieugp 20:14, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)