Re: On compilers, VM's, etc. (Was: Next app.: Doc. Policy)
Raul Miller writes:
> Yann Dirson <dwitch@bylbo> wrote:
> > The basic idea is that I don't see the point of keeping such terms as
> > "source", "compiled", etc., at least as we use them now.
> source tends to refer to human-authored documents, compiled refers to
> machine translations of those documents. Don't lose sight of this, it's
> important for a variety of reasons.
I understand this, but it would be nice if we ccould agree on what
reasons we have to distinguish the human-authored documents
(doc-source or program-source) from machine-converted ones, and the
limits of the domain out of which they're unnecessary.
IMO, this distinction is necessary from the point of view of
distribution maintainers. I will not contest that, and a simple
boolean control-field in packages will handle that well.
But I do not think it is necessary from the user point of view. What
they need is just something that cat be run by the VM they choose; I
mean that from both doc and binary point of views.
I they *really* want to get the source for any purpose, the
install-tool will just have to follow links down to the original
Note here that I consider that a single tool will be needed for all
packages, no matter how much conversions lead to them.
Yann Dirson <email@example.com>
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
firstname.lastname@example.org . Trouble?
e-mail to email@example.com .