Re: [rant] Re: Consequences of moving Emacs Manuals to non-free
On 23 Mar 2006, Hubert Chan told this:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:45:50 -0600, Manoj Srivastava
> <email@example.com> said:
>> The info file is a derived file; the source is make.texi. The
>> preferred form for modification is the texi file, which is non
> The inconsistency smells a lot like an oversight. Have you checked
> with upstream to see if that was what was actually intended, or if
> it was a copy/paste bug?
Not to me, it does mot. The info files do not really have
front or back covers, so there is no fron or back cover invariant
sections. Printed manuals do have covers, hence front-and-back cover
texts. Sounds entirely logical to me.
It also seems to be the norm for documentation that seems to
be coming from the GNU project, so I think my take on this is
correct -- _ALL_ those documents can't all have the exact same
But feel free to talk to upstream and see if all GNU documents
can be made DFSG free again.
In seeking the unattainable, simplicity only gets in the way. Epigrams
in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C