ELPAing all the GNU manuals

ELPAing all the GNU manuals

[Nic Ferrier]

Should I do this?

All GNU manuals are free. Therefore they can be redistributed.

All GNU manuals have texinfo (well, I'm only interested in the ones that
do).

Texinfo manuals can be turned into packages.

Therefore we can put all GNU texinfo manuals into ELPA.

I'd be happy to work out a script for doing it since I am going to do
pretty much the same for my HTML info reader.


Opinions please.


Nic

Re: ELPAing all the GNU manuals

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hi, Nic.

On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 10:36:03AM +0100, Nic Ferrier wrote:
> Should I do this?

> All GNU manuals are free. Therefore they can be redistributed.

> All GNU manuals have texinfo (well, I'm only interested in the ones that
> do).

> Texinfo manuals can be turned into packages.

> Therefore we can put all GNU texinfo manuals into ELPA.

> I'd be happy to work out a script for doing it since I am going to do
> pretty much the same for my HTML info reader.


> Opinions please.

Do you have a good reason for this exercise?  Why bother?  What does it
gain anybody?

You'll get one more non-authoritative place to obtain all these manuals,
and from this place they're not going to be up to date, unless you figure
out some mechanism of keeping them up to date.  Keeping them up to date
is going to be a lot of work.

> Nic

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: ELPAing all the GNU manuals

[David Kastrup]

Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:

> You'll get one more non-authoritative place to obtain all these
> manuals, and from this place they're not going to be up to date,
> unless you figure out some mechanism of keeping them up to date.
> Keeping them up to date is going to be a lot of work.

Uh, I don't _want_ my info manuals to be up to date.  I want them to
correspond to the software version I have installed.  I have nothing to
gain from using copy&paste of some code from a manual that is not yet
supported by my software.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: ELPAing all the GNU manuals

[Nic Ferrier]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:
>
>> You'll get one more non-authoritative place to obtain all these
>> manuals, and from this place they're not going to be up to date,
>> unless you figure out some mechanism of keeping them up to date.
>> Keeping them up to date is going to be a lot of work.
>
> Uh, I don't _want_ my info manuals to be up to date.  I want them to
> correspond to the software version I have installed.  I have nothing to
> gain from using copy&paste of some code from a manual that is not yet
> supported by my software.

I've just realized I am asking for permission and I should just be
doing.


But here's one reason why things do go into ELPA. General negativity
being almost always the first reaction on this list.


Nic

Re: ELPAing all the GNU manuals

[joakim]

Nic Ferrier <nferrier@ferrier.me.uk> writes:

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:
>>
>>> You'll get one more non-authoritative place to obtain all these
>>> manuals, and from this place they're not going to be up to date,
>>> unless you figure out some mechanism of keeping them up to date.
>>> Keeping them up to date is going to be a lot of work.
>>
>> Uh, I don't _want_ my info manuals to be up to date.  I want them to
>> correspond to the software version I have installed.  I have nothing to
>> gain from using copy&paste of some code from a manual that is not yet
>> supported by my software.
>
> I've just realized I am asking for permission and I should just be
> doing.
>
>
> But here's one reason why things do go into ELPA. General negativity
> being almost always the first reaction on this list.

So, I will play good cop.

To me it sounds like a cool idea.

Apart from just being good cop, I see some actual benefits.

There is precedence in the Java world for this sort of thing, and there
its pretty useful.

In the Emacs world, we would gain increased visibility of the GNU
world from within Emacs. ELPA browser frontends will also be nicer.

Now over to the bad cops...


>
> Nic
>

-- 
Joakim Verona

Re: ELPAing all the GNU manuals

[David Kastrup]

joakim@verona.se writes:

> Nic Ferrier <nferrier@ferrier.me.uk> writes:
>
>> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:
>>>
>>>> You'll get one more non-authoritative place to obtain all these
>>>> manuals, and from this place they're not going to be up to date,
>>>> unless you figure out some mechanism of keeping them up to date.
>>>> Keeping them up to date is going to be a lot of work.
>>>
>>> Uh, I don't _want_ my info manuals to be up to date.  I want them to
>>> correspond to the software version I have installed.  I have nothing to
>>> gain from using copy&paste of some code from a manual that is not yet
>>> supported by my software.
>>
>> I've just realized I am asking for permission and I should just be
>> doing.
>>
>>
>> But here's one reason why things do go into ELPA. General negativity
>> being almost always the first reaction on this list.
>
> So, I will play good cop.
>
> To me it sounds like a cool idea.
>
> Apart from just being good cop, I see some actual benefits.
>
> There is precedence in the Java world for this sort of thing, and there
> its pretty useful.
>
> In the Emacs world, we would gain increased visibility of the GNU
> world from within Emacs. ELPA browser frontends will also be nicer.
>
> Now over to the bad cops...

Uh, you just smoked all the confiscated weed.  Now what?

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: ELPAing all the GNU manuals

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hello again, Nic.

On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 12:10:45PM +0100, Nic Ferrier wrote:
> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> > Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:

> >> You'll get one more non-authoritative place to obtain all these
> >> manuals, and from this place they're not going to be up to date,
> >> unless you figure out some mechanism of keeping them up to date.
> >> Keeping them up to date is going to be a lot of work.

> > Uh, I don't _want_ my info manuals to be up to date.  I want them to
> > correspond to the software version I have installed.  I have nothing to
> > gain from using copy&paste of some code from a manual that is not yet
> > supported by my software.

> I've just realized I am asking for permission and I should just be
> doing.

Another reason for not doing it is it might be bloating ELPA with what
it's not really for.  This is what has happened at my day job, where our
source code repository has become the default place to store anything
and everything, like test results and reports on visits to suppliers.
The said repositiory has swollen to several 10s of Gigabytes.

But I don't know ELPA well enough to judge whether random manuals are
appropriate there.  Doesn't "ELPA" stand for "elisp <something or
other>"?

> But here's one reason why things do go into ELPA. General negativity
> being almost always the first reaction on this list.

:-)  Well, you did explicitly ask for opinions.  You got some.

> Nic

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: ELPAing all the GNU manuals

[Eric Brown]

Nic Ferrier <nferrier@ferrier.me.uk> writes:

>
> Therefore we can put all GNU texinfo manuals into ELPA.
>
> Opinions please.

It seems to me to be a question of scope. Why put all GNU project
manuals into the Emacs Lisp Package Archive?

Re: ELPAing all the GNU manuals

[Stefan Monnier]

> All GNU manuals are free. Therefore they can be redistributed.
> All GNU manuals have texinfo (well, I'm only interested in the ones that
> do).
> Texinfo manuals can be turned into packages.
> Therefore we can put all GNU texinfo manuals into ELPA.

Yes, we can do that.  But just because we can doesn't mean we should.
So what would be the benefits and the drawbacks?

Clearly, you have some reason to do that.  Could you explain it to us?


        Stefan "Preoccupied with keeping things up-to-date and in-sync"

Re: ELPAing all the GNU manuals

[Nic Ferrier]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA> writes:

>> All GNU manuals are free. Therefore they can be redistributed.
>> All GNU manuals have texinfo (well, I'm only interested in the ones that
>> do).
>> Texinfo manuals can be turned into packages.
>> Therefore we can put all GNU texinfo manuals into ELPA.
>
> Yes, we can do that.  But just because we can doesn't mean we should.
> So what would be the benefits and the drawbacks?
>
> Clearly, you have some reason to do that.  Could you explain it to us?
>
>
>         Stefan "Preoccupied with keeping things up-to-date and in-sync"

I didn't mean to suggest it wouldn't be kept in sync. That would kind of
be the point.

The point would be to make them available to Emacs users. I am an Ubuntu
user. I just installed gnupg. No info manual appeared in my Emacs.

What I probably want is some sort of better info manual management. I
probably have the manual on my machine somewhere but it's not
automatically being found by Emacs.

I'll think more.



I shouldn't have bothered emacs-devel with a musing. But I re-assert
that is a problem. If "because we can doesn't mean we should" is a
gateway to ELPA then you've got a problem. 


Nic

Re: ELPAing all the GNU manuals

[Glenn Morris]

Nic Ferrier wrote:

> I am an Ubuntu user. I just installed gnupg. No info manual appeared
> in my Emacs.

The manuals are often packaged separately. You need to install
gnupg-doc, which is i) a suggested package of the gnupg package; and ii)
guaranteed to match the version of gnupg you have installed (how would
your method deal with that - package multiple versions of every manual?)
It shows up in my Emacs just fine (Ubuntu 14.04) with no configuration
needed.

> But I re-assert that is a problem. If "because we can doesn't mean we
> should" is a gateway to ELPA then you've got a problem.

AFAICS Stefan takes a very inclusive approach with elpa.gnu.org.
Your specific proposal just doesn't seem to make much sense.

Re: ELPAing all the GNU manuals

[Thomas Koch]

> >> All GNU manuals are free. Therefore they can be redistributed.
Unfortunately there is some difference between what GNU considers free and what 
Debian considers free[1]. Therefor we have many manuals that are available 
only in Debian non-free which might be the reason you have to install a 
separate documentation package in ubuntu.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License#Criticism

Please don't start a discussion on this subject here! I just wanted to make 
Nic aware of the subject.

Regards, Thomas Koch

Re: ELPAing all the GNU manuals

[Matthias Meulien]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 767 bytes --]

> Clearly, you have some reason to do that.  Could you explain it to us?
>

Here is a use case for a repository of Emacs Lisp Packages for Info
documentation (ELPI) (note that I have no idea whether it should use ELPA
or not): A Windows user which install Git has access to Bash, Find utils,
Core utils, etc but he has no local documentation for those tools, right?
The repository could help such users to quickly set up their Emacs to have
a permanent access to the documentation.

Other reasons:
- Promote the Emacs info reader;
- Make the Info documentation available without installing packages (Some
documentation refers to say the 'printf' format but users don't want to or
can't modify their computer installation to read the libc documentation).
-- 
Matthias

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1138 bytes --]

Re: ELPAing all the GNU manuals

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 14:34:40 +0200
> From: Matthias Meulien <orontee@gmail.com>
> Cc: Nic Ferrier <nferrier@ferrier.me.uk>, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> A Windows user which install Git has access to Bash, Find utils,
> Core utils, etc but he has no local documentation for those tools,
> right?

Wrong, IME.  A Windows binary package either includes the docs or have
a "docs" package right near it.

Re: ELPAing all the GNU manuals

[Nic Ferrier]

Thomas Koch <thomas@koch.ro> writes:

>> >> All GNU manuals are free. Therefore they can be redistributed.
> Unfortunately there is some difference between what GNU considers free and what 
> Debian considers free[1]. Therefor we have many manuals that are available 
> only in Debian non-free which might be the reason you have to install a 
> separate documentation package in ubuntu.
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License#Criticism
>
> Please don't start a discussion on this subject here! I just wanted to make 
> Nic aware of the subject.

Yeah, thanks. I am aware. This was one of the reasons for my suggestion.

Re: ELPAing all the GNU manuals

[Matthias Meulien]

> Wrong, IME.  A Windows binary package either includes the docs or have
> a "docs" package right near it.

My experience is that the info files that ship with Git for Windows
don't cover all the GNU tools available in the Git bash console,
starting with Bash.

What's more, mingw-get is not included in the (minimal) MinGW embedded
in (the official) Git for Windows. So I am not sure users have a way to
install those docs package.
-- 
Matthias

Re: ELPAing all the GNU manuals

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Matthias Meulien <orontee@gmail.com>
> Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, nferrier@ferrier.me.uk, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 21:35:23 +0200
> 
> > Wrong, IME.  A Windows binary package either includes the docs or have
> > a "docs" package right near it.
> 
> My experience is that the info files that ship with Git for Windows
> don't cover all the GNU tools available in the Git bash console,
> starting with Bash.

What does that have to do with the issue at hand?  Users that have
Findutils etc. in the Git tree should not use them, they are for Git,
period.

If Windows users want to use Findutils etc., they should install MinGW
ports of those, which do come with docs.

Re: ELPAing all the GNU manuals

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

    Therefore we can put all GNU texinfo manuals into ELPA.

Your reasoning shows that it COULD be done, but what's the point of
doing it?

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call.

Re: ELPAing all the GNU manuals

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

    Unfortunately there is some difference between what GNU considers free and what 
    Debian considers free[1].

ELPA is part of the GNU Project and we go by our own criteria for
licenses.  If Debian wants to be "more Catholic than the Pope", that's
not our concern.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call.