Talk:List of GNU packages

Needs Division
Needs division into packages which have had releases within the last year and unmaintained packages which have no releases in 4 years or more. A large collection of unmaintained packages or ones which are in alpha status should be clearly identified. The list is like saying that Windows XP is an ongoing Operating System because Microsoft patched it within the last 5 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:3172:33F3:7EB9:74B1 (talk) 03:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Old Discussion
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)
 * It seems they don't use that phrase. However, there is a list of GNU (i.e. part of the GNU operating system) packages at .  I don't think the Wikipedia page should have every GNU package though, only the particularly notable ones. Superm401 - Talk 23:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Version, maintainer, license etc
I propose this layout for discussion:

-- * Date the software development project started.

Anything else?

-- Mathieugp 20:14, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I'd actually remove the version columns (not very informative & quickly dated). The launch date, maintainers, and license are all useful.  I'd include a link to the site where there is no Wikipedia page Karnesky 18:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree for the date. It might be better to leave it out for the reasons you stated. I also agree for the link to the site.


 * Since I posted this suggestion, I have become a more knowlegeable wikipedian and now I think it might be a good idea to create a project with the more ambitious goal of tagging and categorizing all software packages. I think the template I proposed would be a good start. What do you think? -- Mathieugp 15:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Spam tag?
What's with the spam tag? The links are all to areas of the GNU website. This is appropriate considering the page is about GNU software. . . If you think one or more of the links is not useful, just delete them. But I don't think there's any way you could call them spam/innapropriate. . . Jason75 03:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Call it GNU/Spam if you like. Problem is that those gnu links violate WP:EL and WP:NOT and they have to go since Wikipedia isn't a web directory. One Gnu.org link at the bottom would be sufficient. (Requestion 04:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC))


 * OK, cleaned up links.  Jason75 04:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for cleaning up the External links sections. I removed the homepage URL column. This is now one fantastic looking List of Software.  I appreciate your help and support. (Requestion 05:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

Notability
GDallimore challenged Notability of Plotutils. See also Talk:Plotutils. Any comments? --Swen (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A majority of the packages listed in this topic are less notable. (Same rule applies to most of the SourceForge projects advertised in WP).  However, while most of the google hits simply provide availability, there are here/there comments on it, this for example, and this hth Tedickey (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguous

 * This list of GNU packages lists notable software packages developed for or maintained by the Free Software Foundation as part of the GNU project, a Unix-like computer operating system composed entirely of free software.

Either GNU, the operating system is meant, or GNU Project, which includes more than just the GNU operating system. --Abdull (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * For practical purposes, GNU is Hurd (not much to say there). So this topic is focused on GNU Project Tedickey (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"Base system"
A citation is needed, from someplace in the plethora of GNU/FSF webpages, which defines the "base system" and what comprises it. Random cites from third parties would be inappropriate TEDickey (talk) 09:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that GNU/FSF have never published a definition of "base system". We need a different term for that section, or maybe those packages should be moved into other sections.  It's hard to see the justification for coreutils being "base system" but glibc not. Gronky (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've removed the tag because a citation will never be found, and instead added an introductory paragraph: . Gronky (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How about the GNU utils that come with Debian/Ubuntu as a starting point. Wqwt (talk) 05:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

choice of external links
The directory page is prettier, but this appears to be the official page, along with being more up-to-date TEDickey (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

libc and the gnu toolchain
libc is much more core than anything else. Even core coreutils is unable work without it. And what about the toolchain? The toolchain is the most important and complex part of a gnu system and even though it is not installed by default on some distros it should be listed in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.199.121.9 (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

GNU Radio?
Why is GNU Radio not present in the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.20.62.192 (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Versions are outdated
Version number and date should automatically update with the referenced article's main page ie."GNU Bash" or at least consistently have a plus/minus "±" date-link ;)

GSMC(Chief Mike) Kouklis U.S.NAVY Ret. ⛮🇺🇸 / 🇵🇭🌴 14:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkouklis(2) (talk • contribs)