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
