[Update Request]: Repology (multiple packages)

[stephengillie]

What type of update are you requesting?

A change to the package metadata

Current Package Identifier

Packages listed in Problems in winget

Package Version

(Various)

Please describe the changes you would like to see

This page holds data from Repology on bad links, redirect loops, HTTP -> HTTPS redirects, and other simple changes that should be made to humdreds of different manifests. Each page appears to hold 200 results, and there are numerous pages.

https://repology.org/repository/winget/problems

[Trenly]

I went through and fixed several of these issues many months ago. At this point, I'm not sure that Repology integration is even valuable for WinGet, since -

1. The way that versions are stored here isn't really compatible with the way Repology tracks versions in other repositories. This leads to versions being listed as outdated - where WinGet wants to keep the old versions, they would need to be explicitly marked as legacy in the Repology ruleset. Every time a new version is added to WinGet, the newly outdated version would need a PR to be marked as legacy in Repology. Either that, or WinGet should only be keeping the latest version of packages, which seems to defeat part of the ideology of WinGet
2. Repology was built for Linux tools, and many Windows packages are hidden by default. When I last checked, according to Repology we had 2220 packages, when in reality there should have been almost 6000 (5943). Detection rules for the missing packages would have to be submitted to Repology for the missing packages
3. Packages being mismapped - Repology doesn't always map package IDs correctly, especially when the names are close. A rule has to be submitted to Repology to disambiguate the package
4. Package versions not being marked as Dev / Alpha - Similar to the packages being mismapped, if a version is a dev version or an alpha version a new rule has to be submitted to Repology for that version or a regex match for a version pattern
5. Adding rules to Repology is not straight forward - when I tried it seemed that there was a fair amount of tribal knowledge and lack of clear documentation or examples on which files rules needed to go into and how to update them to add the rules

I would strongly encourage @denelon and the team to rethink whether or not we even want to be listed on Repology, as it seems to cause more headaches than it is worth

[vedantmgoyal9]

I think HTTP->HTTPS redirect possibility should be checked in Validation pipeline itself. Maybe create another issue to track this feature request for Validation pipelines?

[Trenly]

I think HTTP->HTTPS redirect possibility should be checked in Validation pipeline itself. Maybe create another issue to track this feature request for Validation pipelines?

• [New Feature]: Enforce HTTPS URLs where possible #90249