From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,d3287d5ba796ff88 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GNAT documentation in Debian References: <871wivf1l8.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <1176218053.519325.50180@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> From: Markus E Leypold Organization: N/A Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:45:43 +0200 Message-ID: <4o6484nsgo.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) Cancel-Lock: sha1:YWgDLtAy2txTqX/GdKbsg72L6v0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.227.169 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1176219505 88.72.227.169 (10 Apr 2007 17:38:25 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.warperbbs.de!news.albasani.net!news.gnuher.de!news.szaf.org!news.unit0.net!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14872 Date: 2007-04-10T17:45:43+02:00 List-Id: "Ludovic Brenta" 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