Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Jérôme Marant wrote: >> > >> > Please report any problem related to these changes ASAP. Thanks. >> >> Not exactly a technical problem, but as a humble user and member of >> the local flock of the GNU Emacs Church, I find the output of `M-x >> emacs-version' rather deceptive. This trivial patch should fix it: >> >> ++ "GNU Emacs %s (%s%s%s)\n of %s on %s, crippled by Debian" > > There was a vote. This new package abides by the results it and remains > free. As a bonus, they went to the trouble of packaging the docs into > `emacs21-common-non-dfsg' and you still complain?
I don't see a complaint. I just see a request for truth in advertising. Emacs without its online documentation is crippled. It would be more appropriate, however, to have the "crippled" moniker depend on whether the documentation has been installed or not. If you want to, use "non-DFSG-compliant documentation removed" instead of "crippled". The change is so drastic that it certainly seems appropriate to announce it more prominently than just with "modified". > They could have simply dropped the docs altogether; they didn't. > All they have done is separate the package into a part that the FSF > says you can _completely_ and freely modify, and another part that > the FSF says you can't. Install the available non-free package and > get over it. I already mentioned that I would find it better manageable for users if the package was not split, but instead completely moved to nonfree. Since Emacs is not really useful without its online docs, the incomplete version in main helps nobody. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
