On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 06:08, Karsten Wade wrote:
> I guess I'd consider that an extremist view. Especially for
a tool to
> produce documentation, a third order product. How far back does this
> view go?
So ... should we abandon all this stuff and use Framemaker + SGML?
More extremism
Karsten?
Forget the idealism for a second. The technical reason is simple.
If I write a program, compile it, and six months later get a bug report,
how do I know if the bug is in my program or the compiler? I don't
know, and I can't know, because I can't look at the source to figure it
out.
Practically speaking, would you be able to resolve compiler bugs?
I know I wouldn't.
It is impossible to debug something happening in a toolchain if there
is
a link in the chain that is closed source.
To which I'd posit the notion of
limited sphere of influence.
I.e. I'm unlikely to use fop in such a way that I'd break the compiler.
The *entirety* of Fedora _must_be_ free.
If that's your position I've no problem with that.
I'll guess that Tammy won't come in on this debate, so
I'll ask how/if/whether that position is supported by others
in this group?
I personally don't think its reasonable for documentation.
The point of Fedora
documentation is _not_ to build a toolchain that will run on Solaris,
HP-UX, AIX, Windows, or OSX. It is to build a toolchain that runs under
Fedora. To do that, the packages should be at least part of the Core
packages, and in either case (Core or Extras) they _must_ be 100% free.
It's not like I made up these rules, although I do approve of them with
all my heart.
OK lets blame someone else.
My usual question now follows. Who?
Can you point to a document/person/project manager who has this
documented somewhere?
--
Regards DaveP.
XSLT&Docbook FAQ
http://www.dpawson.co.uk/xsl