Re: [rant] Re: Consequences of moving Emacs Manuals to non-free
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:38:02 +0900, Miles Bader <miles.bader@necel.com> said:
> In practice I guess it's just going to mean that most people end up
> putting non-free in their sources.list, weakening the effect of having
> a separation between "free" and "non-free" in the first place,
I agree. And non-free was getting to be non-useful too.
> and more users end up confused because lack of hard dependencies will
> mean the doc packages don't get installed.
Personally, I'm not too concerned about the doc packages not getting
installed. There are a lot of packages in Debian that are split into
executable and documentation that don't have hard dependencies to
automatically install the documentation. And the documentation for
emacs is already large enough that it could have already justified
splitting it off into a separate optional package if the maintainers
wanted to.
As long as the maintainers add the appropriate stubs so that things like
C-h C-p don't generate confusing errors. I suspect that most people
don't use the documentation anyways.
BTW, no need to Cc: me, I'm subscribed to the list.
--
Hubert Chan - email & Jabber: hubert@uhoreg.ca - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA (Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net)
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Reply to: