pdf toolchain notes & suggestions

[Paul W. Frields]

On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 11:42, Dave Pawson wrote:
> 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?

Your use of the word "extremism" is ungracious. I would recommend you
take a look again at the Fedora Project overall goals:

"The goal of The Fedora Project is to work with the Linux community to
build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from free
software."

The Docs Project, which is part of the overall Fedora Project, builds
documentation which is to eventually be included in the operating
system, as a fedora-docs RPM I would imagine. Any .src.rpm in the Fedora
tree should be buildable on Fedora itself, with free software. Karsten's
point -- which is the same as my earlier point in essenc, I think,
although Karsten may correct me if I'm wrong -- is that when we add
non-free tools to the toolchain we break the project. Period.

I don't know much about some of the tools whose names have been bandied
about, but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is their status as free
software (or otherwise). If it's not free we shouldn't be using it. To
do otherwise runs directly counter to the ambitions of the Project. It's
not about being a zealot; it's about simply accepting the goals of the
&FP; and the &FDP;. They are what they are, and our project either
follows them or gets jettisoned.

> > 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.

Your skills, my skills, and/or Karsten's skills are not particularly
relevant to the discussion either. You're missing the forest for the
trees here. What Karsten is saying, I think, is that any reliance on
non-free software puts us at the mercy of that tool. You or I might not
be able to resolve compiler bugs, but there are plenty of people working
(either now or in the future) on FDP that could. If any of those people
can't resolve problems because the software isn't free for them to
examine, suggest changes, or fix, then the toolchain is broken by
definition. Making a decision that ties those people's hands based on
our own personal experience or skill set is poor planning and a Bad
Idea(tm).

> > 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.

Again, your specific case does not override the rule, by which I mean,
the fact that *you* wouldn't use it in that way doesn't mean that *no
one* would do so. In fact, can you guarantee that this problem would
never occur? If you can, I need your help with my investments!  :-)

> > 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.

I don't see why Tammy *wouldn't* enter into this debate. She has done
this kind of work for a while as well, from what I understand, and
probably has some insight too. I'm in agreement with Karsten, for the
reasons stated in my topmost comments.

> >   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?

There's no reason to "blame" anyone. The goals of the Fedora Project are
axiomatic -- or more correctly, maxims, meaning they are principles that
we accept when we participate. Anyone who doesn't agree with them is
free to move ahead with their own project. These goals, and their
antecedents (see above), are not really something subject to discussion
and mitigation.

-- 
Paul W. Frields, RHCE