On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 12:20, Dave Pawson wrote: > On Mon, 2004-09-27 at 21:09, Karsten Wade wrote: > > > > Strictly speaking, we shouldn't need to recompile it under gcj, but > > > > it's a nice, safe thing to do if we're going to use gij as the java > > > > interpreter. > > > > > > Is that pure NIH, or are there other reasons? > > > Why make life hard? > > > > FOP needs to compile with a free Java compiler and run in a free Java > > environment to be part of a completely free toolchain. > > That's a view. I don't support it. That's a pity, I *do* support it. > Sun provide Java. Lets use it. Adobe provides Acrobat; shall we simply use that instead? ;-) > > One reason for using gcj for compiling is that if we need to report bugs > > with other free software, our components are going to be suspect if they > > have been tainted by non-free components during compiling or runtime. > Your definition. Not mine. > What's your definition of a bug in this context? > Any reason we shouldn't support fop by feeding back to them? > Or would you prefer to fix them on the version used here? > I can't see the rationale there. A look at the kernel developers' list and searching for "Nvidia" might convince you otherwise. > > There are developers who will push bug reports back at us in those > > situations, and I support them in doing so. > > > > As hard as it may be to start, having a completely free toolchain will > > be blessing. > > To whom? > Sounds like whipping yourself to me. No, I think it's more a case that Karsten is trying to cleave to the purpose of the Fedora Project as a 100% free O/S. Violating that principle on the docs side just means that, at best, we fail to support or act on a free alternative; at worst, we support a crippled O/S. IMHO, anyone should be able to use a totally free O/S to "bootstrap" the building of any component thereof, including docs. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE
