Re: Making autogsdoc a separate package

[Richard Frith-Macdonald]

On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 11:15 AM, Nicola Pero wrote:

> > > > I'd like to propose to make autogsdoc a separate package from
> > > > gnustep-base.
> > > > It has nothing to do with gnustep-base actually, as it's a 
> > > > completely
> > > > independent documentation tool.
> > >
> > > Yes, but it's hard enough to get people to write/read the
> > > documentation as it is. Requiring a separate package would make it
> > > harder (plus I'd have to maintain a separate package as well
> > > (relases,etc)).
> >
> > I see no problem (other than the maintainability overhead ... a 
> > pretty strong argument)
> > with moving autogsdoc and dwrite and make_strings and cvtenc etc etc 
> > out into a
> > separate package, but no point either.
>
> make_strings is probably part of gnustep-base; autogsdoc is definitely
> not.
>
> Compare that with OPENSTEP: the equivalent of make_strings was shipped 
> by
> default; the equivalent of autogsdoc was not.

No offence intended, but I think this is just a religious issue...

Your first statement is an opinion which begs the question.
Your second statement is -
1. arguably incorrect ... HeaderViewer.app and other features/tools 
provided
roughly comparable (not identical) functionality.  At least that was in 
NeXTstep 3.3,
so I'm assuming it was still in OPENSTEP.
2. not obviously relevant anyway ... we do not as a policy restrict 
GNUstep
to including only things which were present in OPENSTEP

I think we need to agree to disagree on the desirability of this,
because we won't get anywhere as long as we are really just
arguing about personal opinions.