pdf toolchain notes & suggestions

[Paul W. Frields]

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