Re: Bug#207932: Consequences of moving Emacs Manuals to non-free
Jérôme Marant wrote:
Let's take the glibc example:
[...]
As you can see, even libc6 development files "suggest" glibc-doc.
So, suggesting is perfectly OK.
This comparison limps. Many people install development packages only
to compile downloaded sources, not to develop themselves. But nobody
installs Emacs just to byte-compile other people's lisp files. A
better comparison would be that emacs21 "suggests" emacs21-el (and
could also "suggest" elisp-manual, which it currently does not).
Otherwise, what technical solution do you propose? If this is about moving
emacs to contrib, then emacs disappears from Debian (read "main"), and
people have to add contrib to their source list.
Well, moving emacs to contrib was I had already suggested in my first
message to this thread, and at least one person supports that. But as
you disagree, let's see how many people will be willing to use Emacs
without the manual.
I'm surprised there is still a misunderstanding. Debian decided that
invariant sections were problematic (you will find rationales
everywhere on debian sites). It is not Debian's fault if they do
exist.
Again, I fully agree with Miles' words:
There is no misunderstanding. We simply think debian did something
dumb, that will hurt it as a project.
Regards,
Sven
Reply to: