Can we expect the following to be taken into account? Public repository maintained by Tranquil IT Systems (and other WAPT public repositories) by Repology ?
It seems that only a few mandatory pieces of information are missing in order to be able to request or suggest the addition :
- Description of a line from the packet. (already indicated)
- Package owner(s). (already indicated = Maintainer)
- URL(s) of the package's homepage. (already indicated = License)
- Download URL(s) for the package.
- License information.
- Package category. (already indicated)
I would very much like to know Tranquil IT's opinion on this subject, but also the opinion of other people who maintain a public WAPT repository (if any exist on this forum), please!
