* GNAT documentation in Debian @ 2007-04-06 16:25 Michael Bode 2007-04-06 20:56 ` Markus E Leypold 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Michael Bode @ 2007-04-06 16:25 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT documentation in Debian 2007-04-06 16:25 GNAT documentation in Debian Michael Bode @ 2007-04-06 20:56 ` Markus E Leypold 2007-04-08 13:16 ` Ludovic Brenta 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Markus E Leypold @ 2007-04-06 20:56 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT documentation in Debian 2007-04-06 20:56 ` Markus E Leypold @ 2007-04-08 13:16 ` Ludovic Brenta 2007-04-09 14:20 ` Markus E Leypold 2007-04-10 14:40 ` Florian Weimer 0 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2007-04-08 13:16 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT documentation in Debian 2007-04-08 13:16 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2007-04-09 14:20 ` Markus E Leypold 2007-04-10 14:55 ` Pascal Obry 2007-04-10 15:14 ` Ludovic Brenta 2007-04-10 14:40 ` Florian Weimer 1 sibling, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Markus E Leypold @ 2007-04-09 14:20 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT documentation in Debian 2007-04-09 14:20 ` Markus E Leypold @ 2007-04-10 14:55 ` Pascal Obry 2007-04-10 15:19 ` Markus E Leypold 2007-04-10 15:14 ` Ludovic Brenta 1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Pascal Obry @ 2007-04-10 14:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Markus E Leypold 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT documentation in Debian 2007-04-10 14:55 ` Pascal Obry @ 2007-04-10 15:19 ` Markus E Leypold 0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Markus E Leypold @ 2007-04-10 15:19 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. :-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT documentation in Debian 2007-04-09 14:20 ` Markus E Leypold 2007-04-10 14:55 ` Pascal Obry @ 2007-04-10 15:14 ` Ludovic Brenta 2007-04-10 15:45 ` Markus E Leypold 1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2007-04-10 15:14 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT documentation in Debian 2007-04-10 15:14 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2007-04-10 15:45 ` Markus E Leypold 2007-04-10 16:02 ` Ludovic Brenta 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Markus E Leypold @ 2007-04-10 15:45 UTC (permalink / raw) "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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT documentation in Debian 2007-04-10 15:45 ` Markus E Leypold @ 2007-04-10 16:02 ` Ludovic Brenta 2007-04-10 16:37 ` Markus E Leypold 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2007-04-10 16:02 UTC (permalink / raw) > 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT documentation in Debian 2007-04-10 16:02 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2007-04-10 16:37 ` Markus E Leypold 2007-04-10 18:33 ` Ludovic Brenta 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Markus E Leypold @ 2007-04-10 16:37 UTC (permalink / raw) "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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT documentation in Debian 2007-04-10 16:37 ` Markus E Leypold @ 2007-04-10 18:33 ` Ludovic Brenta 2007-04-10 20:17 ` Markus E Leypold 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2007-04-10 18:33 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT documentation in Debian 2007-04-10 18:33 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2007-04-10 20:17 ` Markus E Leypold 0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Markus E Leypold @ 2007-04-10 20:17 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT documentation in Debian 2007-04-08 13:16 ` Ludovic Brenta 2007-04-09 14:20 ` Markus E Leypold @ 2007-04-10 14:40 ` Florian Weimer 2007-04-10 15:12 ` Ludovic Brenta 1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Florian Weimer @ 2007-04-10 14:40 UTC (permalink / raw) * 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT documentation in Debian 2007-04-10 14:40 ` Florian Weimer @ 2007-04-10 15:12 ` Ludovic Brenta 0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2007-04-10 15:12 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-04-10 20:17 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 14+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2007-04-06 16:25 GNAT documentation in Debian Michael Bode 2007-04-06 20:56 ` Markus E Leypold 2007-04-08 13:16 ` Ludovic Brenta 2007-04-09 14:20 ` Markus E Leypold 2007-04-10 14:55 ` Pascal Obry 2007-04-10 15:19 ` Markus E Leypold 2007-04-10 15:14 ` Ludovic Brenta 2007-04-10 15:45 ` Markus E Leypold 2007-04-10 16:02 ` Ludovic Brenta 2007-04-10 16:37 ` Markus E Leypold 2007-04-10 18:33 ` Ludovic Brenta 2007-04-10 20:17 ` Markus E Leypold 2007-04-10 14:40 ` Florian Weimer 2007-04-10 15:12 ` Ludovic Brenta
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox