[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: New DFSG-compliant emacs packages

+++ David Kastrup [26/10/06 18:17 +0200]:
Mike O'Connor <stew@vireo.org> writes:

+++ David Kastrup [26/10/06 17:25 +0200]:

Since Emacs is not really useful without its online docs, the
incomplete version in main helps nobody.

I find emacs extremely useful, with or without docs.  I'm suprised
that you wouldn't find it to be useful, or that you would think that
there is nobody that would be helped by having emacs available.

Emacs would remain available in non-free.

right.  non-free is not part of debian.  Also, by this reasoning, gcc would
also be moved to non-free, which would eventually require practically all
software to be removed from debian.

I think that removing emacs from debian completely would hinder more
than it helps.  This suggestion seems more like lashing out from a
"sore loser" than someon who is actually trying to be constructive.

How is the proposal to move Emacs completely and intact to non-free
unconstructive?  Do you consider your ad-hominems and name-calling

I'm sorry if you found that offensive.  I don't wish to be name calling.  It
was certainly not my intention to make a comment on you personally, I know
absolutely nothing about you.  I was intending on making a comment on how I
perceived the character of your comments.  I was, possibly wrongly, making
the assumption that you weren't speaking on good faith when you made your
assertions that emacs would help nobody, and wasn't useful without docs. Do
you actually believe that emacs without docs is not useful?  I find it very
useful and rarely consult the docs.  Do you really believe that it helps
nobody if it doesn't have docs?  I can tell you for sure that this is also
not true, it helps me immensely with or without documentation.  I honestly
don't believe that many people would think that debian would be better off
without emacs.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: