GNAT documentation in Debian

GNAT documentation in Debian

[Michael Bode]

I understand that GNAT documentation is considered non-free by
Debian. But I can't even find it in the non-free section. For now I've
installed gnat-4.1-doc_4.1.1-15ubuntu1_all.deb in my Debian
system. But I don't believe this is the intended solution.

-- 
No intelligent man has any respect for an unjust law. 
He simply follows the eleventh commandment.
-- R.A. Heinlein

Re: GNAT documentation in Debian

[Markus E Leypold]

Michael Bode <m.g.bode@web.de> writes:

> I understand that GNAT documentation is considered non-free by
> Debian. But I can't even find it in the non-free section. For now I've
> installed gnat-4.1-doc_4.1.1-15ubuntu1_all.deb in my Debian
> system. But I don't believe this is the intended solution.

I have gnat-doc in my debian system: It seems to contain:

/usr/share/doc/gnat-doc/gnat_rm/
/usr/share/doc/gnat-doc/gnat_ug/
/usr/share/info/gnat_ug.info.gz
/usr/share/info/gnat_rm.info.gz

Of course that is still 3.15p, because I'm still running Sarge ...

Regards -- Markus

Re: GNAT documentation in Debian

[Ludovic Brenta]

Markus E Leypold writes:
> Michael Bode writes:
>
>> I understand that GNAT documentation is considered non-free by
>> Debian. But I can't even find it in the non-free section. For now I've
>> installed gnat-4.1-doc_4.1.1-15ubuntu1_all.deb in my Debian
>> system. But I don't believe this is the intended solution.
>
> I have gnat-doc in my debian system: It seems to contain:
>
> /usr/share/doc/gnat-doc/gnat_rm/
> /usr/share/doc/gnat-doc/gnat_ug/
> /usr/share/info/gnat_ug.info.gz
> /usr/share/info/gnat_rm.info.gz
>
> Of course that is still 3.15p, because I'm still running Sarge ...

None of the GCC maintainers (including myself) having sufficient time,
energy or interest to produce the non-free doc packages, Nikita
V. Youshchenko took it upon himself.  Unfortunately, he lacked the
time, energy or interest to include the Ada docs.  You are welcome to
file a wishlist bug against the source package `gcc-4.1-doc-non-dfsg',
or contribute the necessary patches yourself.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: GNAT documentation in Debian

[Markus E Leypold]

Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:

> Markus E Leypold writes:
>> Michael Bode writes:
>>
>>> I understand that GNAT documentation is considered non-free by
>>> Debian. But I can't even find it in the non-free section. For now I've
>>> installed gnat-4.1-doc_4.1.1-15ubuntu1_all.deb in my Debian
>>> system. But I don't believe this is the intended solution.
>>
>> I have gnat-doc in my debian system: It seems to contain:
>>
>> /usr/share/doc/gnat-doc/gnat_rm/
>> /usr/share/doc/gnat-doc/gnat_ug/
>> /usr/share/info/gnat_ug.info.gz
>> /usr/share/info/gnat_rm.info.gz
>>
>> Of course that is still 3.15p, because I'm still running Sarge ...
>
> None of the GCC maintainers (including myself) having sufficient time,
> energy or interest to produce the non-free doc packages, Nikita

Yes, I now see that I have non-free in apt/sources (but that was not
the question anyway).

> V. Youshchenko took it upon himself.  Unfortunately, he lacked the
> time, energy or interest to include the Ada docs.  You are welcome to
> file a wishlist bug against the source package `gcc-4.1-doc-non-dfsg',
> or contribute the necessary patches yourself.

Me? I wasn't the OP and I'm literally stuck with 3.15p for some
time. So the 3.15p docs are OK with me :-). And I'm -- out of
principle and bad experience -- only filing bugs into debian bug
tracking that I myself experienced. Sarge does have gnat-doc, Sarge is
the stable version.

And BTW: The separation into non-free and free is OK with me (I
basically support the policy behind that), but, your and the other
maintainers merits notwirthstanding, a "free" compiler, which
unfortunately comes without docs ("and we don't care for that") is a
bit of an imposition.

Regards -- Markus

Re: GNAT documentation in Debian

[Pascal Obry]

Markus E Leypold a �crit :
> Me? I wasn't the OP and I'm literally stuck with 3.15p for some
> time. So the 3.15p docs are OK with me :-). And I'm -- out of
> principle and bad experience -- only filing bugs into debian bug
> tracking that I myself experienced. Sarge does have gnat-doc, Sarge is
> the stable version.

Nope, Etch is the stable version since yesterday.

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|              http://www.obry.net
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595

Re: GNAT documentation in Debian

[Markus E Leypold]

Pascal Obry <pascal@obry.net> writes:

> Markus E Leypold a �crit :
>> Me? I wasn't the OP and I'm literally stuck with 3.15p for some
>> time. So the 3.15p docs are OK with me :-). And I'm -- out of
>> principle and bad experience -- only filing bugs into debian bug
>> tracking that I myself experienced. Sarge does have gnat-doc, Sarge is
>> the stable version.
>
> Nope, Etch is the stable version since yesterday.

Yes, I read that immediately after I had written my answer. :-)

Re: GNAT documentation in Debian

[Ludovic Brenta]

Markus E Leypold writes:
> And BTW: The separation into non-free and free is OK with me (I
> basically support the policy behind that), but, your and the other
> maintainers merits notwirthstanding, a "free" compiler, which
> unfortunately comes without docs ("and we don't care for that") is a
> bit of an imposition.

The reason why it's not such a big deal is because the docs are online
at http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/. Of course, having the docs on your
system helps if you're offline.

--
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: GNAT documentation in Debian

[Markus E Leypold]

"Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:

> Markus E Leypold writes:
>> And BTW: The separation into non-free and free is OK with me (I
>> basically support the policy behind that), but, your and the other
>> maintainers merits notwirthstanding, a "free" compiler, which
>> unfortunately comes without docs ("and we don't care for that") is a
>> bit of an imposition.
>
> The reason why it's not such a big deal is because the docs are online
> at http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/. Of course, having the docs on your
> system helps if you're offline.

Well -- I do hate products that are not self contained. The fact that
online source suddenly went dead in the past, might have contributed
to that, so I have to grab everything now (manually, instead of just
putting the debian CD on the shelf), to be able to work with it in the
years to come.

Furthermore, the idea with non-free is, that there is some kind of
dependency from other peoples whim or rights, that might make the
non-free thing/package go away in the future, become unusable (i.e. we
can't change it to reflect the real situation) and so on. So
documentation being in 'non-free' really says "there might not be
accurate documentation in future".

Regards -- Markus

Re: GNAT documentation in Debian

[Ludovic Brenta]

> Well -- I do hate products that are not self contained. The fact that
> online source suddenly went dead in the past, might have contributed
> to that, so I have to grab everything now (manually, instead of just
> putting the debian CD on the shelf), to be able to work with it in the
> years to come.

OK, then you can copy the documentation I referred to to your hard
drive. It's just a bunch of static HTML, info or text files - no CSS,
no JavaScript, no dynamic anything. I agree that providing the doc as
part of Debian would be nice, but I stand by my claim that it's not a
very big deal; just a minor annoyance which you can solve with little
trouble.

> Furthermore, the idea with non-free is, that there is some kind of
> dependency from other peoples whim or rights, that might make the
> non-free thing/package go away in the future, become unusable (i.e. we
> can't change it to reflect the real situation) and so on. So
> documentation being in 'non-free' really says "there might not be
> accurate documentation in future".

Yes, that's true, and that's why Debian decided by way of vote that
any GFDL'd documentation containing invariant sections, front-cover
texts or back-cover texts was "non-free". In the particular case of
the GNAT docs (or the ASIS doc, which is in non-free for the same
reason), I personally think it is ridiculous that one-line front-cover
or back-cover texts should make the whole document non-free, but
Debian cannot change that. Only the copyright holders can. Hence
Florian's very welcome offer to help.

--
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: GNAT documentation in Debian

[Markus E Leypold]

"Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:

>> Well -- I do hate products that are not self contained. The fact that
>> online source suddenly went dead in the past, might have contributed
>> to that, so I have to grab everything now (manually, instead of just
>> putting the debian CD on the shelf), to be able to work with it in the
>> years to come.
>
> OK, then you can copy the documentation I referred to to your hard
> drive. It's just a bunch of static HTML, info or text files - no CSS,
> no JavaScript, no dynamic anything. I agree that providing the doc as
> part of Debian would be nice, but I stand by my claim that it's not a
> very big deal; just a minor annoyance which you can solve with little
> trouble.

I agree, that it is only a minor annoyance _in that single
instance_. Unfortunately minor annoyances of that kind happen far too
often. Also even and especially as a stand alone system, my potato
CDs are now worthless (or at least diminished in worth), since many
packages refer to documentation or add ons in the internet that are
now not there any more. My thinks that should be food for thought.

Also I didn't want to say that this costs me so much time now: I only
wanted to oppose the message "and we (the free maintainers) don't care
for non free docs, wether they are packaged or so" (I'm interpreting
your word here). I only wanted to point out the fallacy in that.

>> Furthermore, the idea with non-free is, that there is some kind of
>> dependency from other peoples whim or rights, that might make the
>> non-free thing/package go away in the future, become unusable (i.e. we
>> can't change it to reflect the real situation) and so on. So
>> documentation being in 'non-free' really says "there might not be
>> accurate documentation in future".

> Yes, that's true, and that's why Debian decided by way of vote that
> any GFDL'd documentation containing invariant sections, front-cover
> texts or back-cover texts was "non-free". In the particular case of
> the GNAT docs (or the ASIS doc, which is in non-free for the same
> reason), I personally think it is ridiculous that one-line front-cover
> or back-cover texts should make the whole document non-free, but
> Debian cannot change that. 

Since it is always possible to add a page that reads "extensively
modified by XYZ project to reflect the changes done WTR to ...", this
is indeed ridiculous.

> Only the copyright holders can. Hence Florian's very welcome offer
> to help.

Indeed. I'd be happy to see that change.

Regards -- Markus

Re: GNAT documentation in Debian

[Ludovic Brenta]

Markus E Leypold writes:
> Also I didn't want to say that this costs me so much time now: I only
> wanted to oppose the message "and we (the free maintainers) don't care
> for non free docs, wether they are packaged or so" (I'm interpreting
> your word here). I only wanted to point out the fallacy in that.

The real message was that nobody cared *enough* to spend the time
necessary, not that nobody cared *at all*.  And that nobody includes
you, Markus.  If you cared enough, you would spend the time.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: GNAT documentation in Debian

[Markus E Leypold]

Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:

> Markus E Leypold writes:
>> Also I didn't want to say that this costs me so much time now: I only
>> wanted to oppose the message "and we (the free maintainers) don't care
>> for non free docs, wether they are packaged or so" (I'm interpreting
>> your word here). I only wanted to point out the fallacy in that.
>
> The real message was that nobody cared *enough* to spend the time
> necessary, not that nobody cared *at all*.

Oh sorry, I understood what you said, explicitely as "we (the
maintainers) don't see that as a problem".

As far as lack of documentation goes I've the same reproach to the
Linux (kernel) maintainers and so on: Missing documentation and if it
exists copyright restrictions on documentation is the bane of free
software at the moment. I'd wish we'de at least come back to the
original "reference manual" idea which is so neatly embodied in the
man pages.

> And that nobody includes you, Markus.  If you cared enough, you
> would spend the time.

Actually a question of priorities. I would have cared enough some time
ago. I had a number of of improvements to GtkAda between 1 and 2 years
years ago, some add-ons and was on the verge of starting to seriously
getting into maintaining a compiler + libraries compilation system
that should provide a identical runtime environment between Linux and
Windows. I was really interested in that. Then AdaCore began those
licensing games and frankly -- wheras I could perhaps have lived with
a change to GPL, I cannot live with AdaCore attitude (and believe me,
mailing with the acting director of AdaCore europe was the logical
equivalent to an out of body experience: Quite surreal and that not
because I failed to ask specific question _could_ not be
misunderstood). I then decided that I won't have any of that (and yes
-- I'd have sent a lawyer simply to get information instead of
evasion, if I had not decided at the end that changing "my software
strategy" would, at the end, be much more profitable and marketable.

I'm well on my way _away_ from Ada now (and so are my clients), so
sorry: Almost anything I'd do for Gnat (or related libaries) now,
would not be a (relatively cheap) spin off, instead it would cost me
heavily.

Also there is other free software that needs my attention now. "Not
caring" does not always explain why people don't fix a specific
problem, and I prefer to do the things right I'm doing, instead of
going round and fixing things other people have missed (and there
would be a lot of fixing to do even in Debian which I like and the
experience is not always favourable when one reports bugs and submit
patches (happened to me, happened to friends)).

No offense intended, but I'm not the debian maintainer of Gnat.

Regards -- Markus

Re: GNAT documentation in Debian

[Florian Weimer]

* Ludovic Brenta:

> None of the GCC maintainers (including myself) having sufficient time,
> energy or interest to produce the non-free doc packages, Nikita
> V. Youshchenko took it upon himself.  Unfortunately, he lacked the
> time, energy or interest to include the Ada docs.  You are welcome to
> file a wishlist bug against the source package `gcc-4.1-doc-non-dfsg',
> or contribute the necessary patches yourself.

Aren't the GNAT manuals suitable for main?  The boilerplate reads:

@copying
Copyright @copyright{} 1995-2005, Free Software Foundation

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with the Invariant Sections being ``GNU Free Documentation License'', with the
Front-Cover Texts being
``@value{EDITION} User's Guide'',
and with no Back-Cover Texts.
A copy of the license is included in the section entitled
``GNU Free Documentation License''.
@end copying

I can ask upstream to remove the GFDL from the Invariant Sections
list.  Technically, this is a no-op anyway.

Re: GNAT documentation in Debian

[Ludovic Brenta]

On Apr 10, 4:40 pm, Florian Weimer <f...@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
> * Ludovic Brenta:
>
> > None of the GCC maintainers (including myself) having sufficient time,
> > energy or interest to produce the non-free doc packages, Nikita
> > V. Youshchenko took it upon himself.  Unfortunately, he lacked the
> > time, energy or interest to include the Ada docs.  You are welcome to
> > file a wishlist bug against the source package `gcc-4.1-doc-non-dfsg',
> > or contribute the necessary patches yourself.
>
> Aren't the GNAT manuals suitable for main?  The boilerplate reads:
>
> @copying
> Copyright @copyright{} 1995-2005, Free Software Foundation
>
> Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
> under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
> or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
> with the Invariant Sections being ``GNU Free Documentation License'', with the
> Front-Cover Texts being
> ``@value{EDITION} User's Guide'',
> and with no Back-Cover Texts.
> A copy of the license is included in the section entitled
> ``GNU Free Documentation License''.
> @end copying
>
> I can ask upstream to remove the GFDL from the Invariant Sections
> list.  Technically, this is a no-op anyway.

That would be nice. Please do and see what happens.

(technically this would require creating a new gnat-4.1-doc source
package, or re-include the docs in the gcc-4.1 source package.)

--
Ludovic Brenta.