On 08/04/2010 07:34 PM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> > So one way to move forward is to effectively have two manuals, > > one containing traditional user-written text (GFDL), the other > > containing generated text (GPL). If you print it out as a > > book, the generated part would just appear as an appendix to > > the manual, it's "mere aggregation". > > This is not acceptable to me. > > You have just described the status quo, what we are already > doing. It is very difficult to link api references to manual > references in two separate documents. What I want to do is full > integration, and not be forced into these aggregations. > > And I am being denied.You are being denied by RMS. He controls the copyright, the SC has no legal say, and he's stubborn as hell. When presented with weak arguments, then yes he will be stubborn but rightly so. I don't see what the problem is with two manuals, from a users perspective I actually prefer that and doing cross referencing between manuals in texinfo is easy.
You probably haven't read this thread fully, or you wouldn't imply that GCC should have an "options manual" separate from the user's manual.
By the way, it's not an insult to qualify RMS's attitude as "stubborn". And even if it was, he doesn't need a public defender.
Paolo
