Add the package source to the package description

[leathekd]

Most of the time I don't really care about the source, but in the case of wiki-backed packages, I'd like to know what I'm getting into (or have the option of avoiding the package).

[technomancy]

Agreed; if we are going to be allowing packages to be pulled from the wiki it needs to be easy to opt out.

[milkypostman]

it may not matter to most but I am curious of the best way to tag the description. is it enough to do something like,

[git]

or maybe

(git)

since you want a way to filter certain packages, here should be a mechanism.

[milkypostman]

or possibly [source: git]

[purcell]

I'd vote for [source: git], personally. Another option might be to include the source type in the version label, e.g. 20120412.wiki...

Also, note that if this source information is to be reliable, we'll need to be careful to never accept emacsmirror URLs for packages that actually originated on the emacswiki.

[bbatsov]

+1 - you know my feelings towards software maintained on a wiki... That said we might just add a source hyperlink.

[leathekd]

Updated. I can look into the hyperlink, if people are interested, but at first glance that would require a fair amount of code rework to do it right across all supported types.

[milkypostman]

@bbatsov that was my other question, should it b e the name of the fetcher, or the url of the repository/file

@purcell adding to the version will not work since version-to-list does not like anything but numeric characters.

@leathekd @purcell my only last comment would be that I think the config parameter to the merge-package-info function should come last, not first. anyways, I figured rather than push my own version of this and you've done the work for it, you could make this last minor change and i'll pull it in. if you don't care, then i'll push my version, but your name "leatherman" will make our source look so much more awesome (hardcore)

[bbatsov]

@milkypostman I'd vote for the url of the repo/file

[milkypostman]

sorry another comment. but shouldn't github fetcher really be git or does this distinction matter to people?

[purcell]

@milkypostman There's no harm in github; easier than special-casing it.

Beware of including the URL, since if #57 gets merged, some packages will have multiple URLs! I think the source type is sufficient.

[leathekd]

I prefer source type because it is a constrained set of items, though I can see the usefulness of knowing the full list of urls/files.

It looks like it might be possible to add urls/files to the package description that pops up when you press return or "?" in the package list. That might involve creating a -readme.txt file, though.

[milkypostman]

we can always change this stuff but here we go. thanks for the update.

[milkypostman]

PS: we should probably add to the README how to use melpa.el to exclude wiki packages using this mechanism. If i have time today I'll write the elisp. Just need to customize package-filter-function.