Re: New DFSG-compliant emacs packages
Jérôme Marant <jerome@marant.org> writes:
> Le jeudi 26 octobre 2006 23:45, David Kastrup a écrit :
>
>> > These days, I wouldn't encourage people to try Emacs. It's not
>> > nonsense, it's my opinion.
>>
>> There is no LaTeX editing environment with even half the functionality
>> of AUCTeX available, in particular if you develop .dtx files, write
>> math-heavy material or need to work with utf-8 texts.
>
> Not everyone use Emacs for LaTex editing
But quite a few users do, and also new users (the respective mailing
lists have hundreds of readers). But I find that somewhat beside the
point unless you don't actually care for the package being used. Are
you trying to argue that it is ok to select Emacs users as collateral
targets for lashing out at the FSF, because there are not too many of
them and you are willing to expend them?
> and I'd bet even half the AUCTeX functionality would be just enough
> for their daily usage. Hey, it's just like Emacs :-)
Cute.
>> > You don't share it. Fair enough.
>>
>> I don't quite understand the rationale to include software into
>> Debian that you don't want people to use.
>
> There are many old time Emacs users who happen to be Debian users as
> well.
Well, we get quite a lot of feedback on the AUCTeX mailing lists from
many new users, too.
>> > And I bet you can use Emacs for everyday's tasks without it's
>> > user guide.
>>
>> Without knowing how to configure it? Hardly.
>
> I mean *you* old time Emacs user, of course.
The Debian package documentation of Emacs does not declare it
deprecated software not to be used by newcomers. If you want to see
it treated as such, truth in advertising would demand that you adapt
the package documentation. It would be unfair not to inform potential
users that Debian will not deliver a package intentionally unsuitable
for beginners.
>> >> And another piece of nonsense. Being an experienced User of Emacs
>> >> does not imply being experienced with the Debian packaging system
>> >> and the outpours of the DFSG guidelines.
>> >
>> > Nothing to do with it. They can even read the manual from gnu.org.
>>
>> Uh, no, they can't. Because C-h K C-t will not lead to the "manual
>> from gnu.org". Nor will using the hyperlinks spread throughout the
>> documentation, like
>
> C-h K C-t does not lead to the manual, it leads to doc strings.
If you don't have a clue, try it out. C-h k C-t leads to the doc
string, C-h K C-t leads to the manual.
> FYI, C-h keybindings still work after moving manuals to non-free.
> Don't we have a misunderstanding?
No, just somebody who does not know his way around Emacs and yet wants
to decide which Debian users should be allowed to use it.
> Please tell me about commands that lead to the manual, not doc
> strings.
I did. C-h K for one thing. In the spirit of this thread, my input
gets ignored. There is also C-h F, C-h r, C-h S, naturally C-h i
(with the convenient index search command i), Help/Search
Documentation/Emacs Terminology, Help/Search Documentation/Lookup
Subject in User Manual, Help/Search Documentation/Lookup Subject in
ELisp Manual, Help/More Manuals/Lookup Subject in all Manuals.
> AFAIK, doc strings are still around after the split. I'm still
> looking for breakages you are talking about.
Why did I give examples?
>> >> There is no sense in providing only a partly functional part in
>> >> main. And it is misleading to not prominently point this out,
>> >> in startup message, and in the name of the package
>> >> (emacs21-without-docs or emacs21-only-dfsg or similar).
>> >> Otherwise, people will reasonably expect that the package
>> >> contains a packaging/compilation of Emacs in the extent
>> >> delivered by the FSF.
>> >
>> > No, they won't expect that because package descriptions as well
>> > as changelogs and copyright files are informative enough for them
>> > to understand.
>>
>> Most people don't look at more than the package name when
>> installing things.
>
> apt-listchanges is quite popular, you know. Don't underestimate
> users.
You mean, making an example of Emacs users is ok because you think the
experienced ones might be able to work around the attack?
Last time I looked, the Debian policies were supposed to be good for
its users, not a weapon against them.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Reply to: