Re: New DFSG-compliant emacs packages
Mike O'Connor <stew@vireo.org> writes:
> +++ 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.
The last time I looked, gcc did not have a hypertext interface into
its documentation that was part of its help system.
Anyway, if Debian decides that the form in which the FSF provides GNU
software is not appropriate for inclusion in main, it should either
start its own replacement documentation projects in order to make
DFSG-compliant variants of GNU software, or move the software out of
main. Everything else does not make sense.
>>> 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
>>constructive?
>
> I'm sorry if you found that offensive.
Calling me a "sore loser" lashing out was intended to be
non-offensive? I am afraid that I have my problems understanding the
categorizations Debian developers employ.
> 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?
Quite a number of commands don't work.
> I find it very useful and rarely consult the docs. Do you really
> believe that it helps nobody if it doesn't have docs?
Yes. It is far too complex to properly use without documentation.
The documentation on customizing Emacs alone is essential. The
sections on Emacs concepts, too.
> 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.
I was not talking about "without Emacs". I was talking about an Emacs
split between main and non-free.
Even if we for a moment assume the hypothesis that experienced Emacs
users would be able to get along with an Emacs that has its
documentation ripped out, those are not the most important clientele:
they will compile their own Emacs (or XEmacs) anyway, since nobody can
understand or work with the broken mess the Debian Emacs package
policies provide.
I think you'll be hard put to find any maintainer or developer of an
Emacs or XEmacs application who would not rather use a self-compiled
Emacs than the Debian contraptions.
So even if we stipulate that experts could get along without
documentation, experts won't use Debian packages in the first place.
The target audience are beginners and advanced users.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Reply to: