gnu-system-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: info-dir translator


From: Paul Jarc
Subject: Re: info-dir translator
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:22:11 -0400
User-agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)

"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <address@hidden> wrote:
> [Sorry for taking so long with the moderation of your message, if you
> could, please subscribe to address@hidden

I am subscribed, but with a different address.  I've now subscribed
(without deliveries) with this address too.

> Running `install-info' as part of `make install' might have made
> sense when package managers were infrequent, but now it doesn't.

Well, we disagree here.  I would rather see more of the work done by
package managers get pushed upstream, so there would be less
duplication of effort for redistributors/repackagers, and less
incompatibility among the repackaged versions of the same upstream
package.

> Even so, having `make install' run `install-info' on a system with a
> info-dir translator on /share/info/dir wouldn't do much harm, one
> could allow for a option that just ignores any writes (instead of
> making the file read-only).

That sounds good.

> Well, the main system that GNU programs should run on is GNU, if we
> don't use the facilities that GNU provides, what is the point of
> having a GNU system?

Non-GNU programs will also run on the GNU system.  The maintainers and
users of those programs will be happy if they Just Work, without
special changes for GNU.  Also, I'm sure the maintainers of various
GNU programs have their own opinions of how important portability is,
and how much effort they put into it.

> Of course, we shouldn't introduce incompatibilities just cause one
> can...  But when they make the overall system nicer to work with, I
> don't see why we shouldn't introduce them.

The key point is how much is considered to be part of "the overall
system".  If you only include GNU software running on the GNU system,
then you'll end up causing problems for people who try to write
portable software, whether it's under the GNU aegis or not.  But if
you also consider those other effects, then I think you'll find that
you can avoid creating portability problems without seriously
impacting GNU.


paul




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]