Re: proposal for fdl module

[Simon Josefsson]

Bruno Haible <address@hidden> writes:

> Simon Josefsson writes:
>> So I don't see where the conflict is.
>
> We do not yet have a conflict. But we nearly have it:
>
> 1) If fdl.texi gets distributed by automake as well, we get a conflict:
>    "automake -a" and "gnulib-tool --update" would install different
>    copies of the file. Quite confusing for the user to have the same
>    file installed by different tools in different versions.

I'd agree with your entire argument IF automake -a actually did
install fdl.texi, but my testing suggest that it doesn't.  It doesn't
even install fdl.texi when I do 'make install' for automake.  So
automake doesn't appear to be a more canonical distribution point for
fdl.texi than any other package that use fdl.texi internally.  Gnulib
seems like a good canonical distribution point.

> 2) Similarly for texinfo.tex: If it gets added to a gnulib module,
>    we get another conflict between "automake -a" and "gnulib-tool --update".

Agreed.

> 3) Integration issues: The set of tools need to fit nicely together, if
>    people shall get a feeling of a "GNU Build System". People don't get
>    this feeling if
>      - texinfo.tex is installed in build-aux/, whereas fdl.texi is
>        installed in $docbase,

Not sure I agree here -- texinfo.tex seems more appropriate in
build-aux/ than in doc/ to me.

>      - the automake doc says that automake distributes "Programs automake
>        might require" but doesn't distribute fdl.texi, whereas they
>        have to look in the "portability library" for where to get the
>        doc license which is unrelated to "portability" and unrelated to
>        "library".

Automake doesn't require nor use fdl.texi, or does it?

Getting fdl.texi from gnulib is a convenience, and if automake doesn't
already provide it, having gnulib do it seems unproblematic.

/Simon