In article <2025Oct26.091838@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>,   
   Anton Ertl  wrote:   
   >albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl writes:   
   >>In article <2025Oct25.181001@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>,   
   >>Anton Ertl  wrote:   
   >>>albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl writes:   
   >>>>The real goal should be that if you are in a graphic Debian package   
   >>>>manager, gforth should show up, if you search for forth.   
   >>>   
   >>>And then what?  Get a slow Gforth package without documentation?  Sure   
   >>>makes a good first impression.   
   >>   
   >>That is a cardinal sin, a package without documentation. Why have modern   
   >>Gforth's no documentation?   
   >   
   >What makes you think that it has no documentation?   
   >   
   >Debian does not deliver the documentation because they consider the   
   >GFDL to be a non-free license.  For other GNU software, they have a   
   >doc package that they deliver as non-free package.  For Gforth, they   
   >just do not distribute the documentation at all.   
   >   
   >> Gforth 0.7.3 has a reasonable info documentation in Debian.   
   >   
   >When I say   
   >   
   >info Gforth   
   >   
   >on a Debian 11 where the Debian gforth packages are installed, it   
   >displays the man page.  There are no gforth.info* files in   
   >/usr/share/info (which is managed by the package manager).   
      
   Okay I was wrong. I somehow got the gforth documentation belonging to   
   the package. That was a long time ago, 2009.   
      
   That is why they have a possibility to download packages from a   
   "non free" site which is accommodated albeit not in the pure   
   Debian distribution. That is where I have my info documentation   
   from gforth 0.7.3 from.   
   You can recommend packages while downloading gforth.   
   That can be a documentation package from a non-free site.   
      
   >   
   >If you see more than the man page, maybe you have installed Gforth   
   >from source on the system at a point (then the default location would   
   >be /usr/local/share/info).   
      
   Maybe I did (2009 ...)   
   Debian is not against installing non-free packages.   
   I am with you disapproving of documentation with a nearly free   
   license is dubious, compare it with the non- acceptance of   
   an assembler file as source, merely because it is available   
   for other assembler formats.   
      
   >   
   >Alternatively, if you tend to upgrade Debian in-place, you might have   
   >the documentation from the time before they decided to remove it.   
      
   That is a problem. Fortunately gforth is never updated.   
      
   >   
      
   Look at  https://github.com/albertvanderhorst/lina   
   for an example that you can make an illegal deb package that   
   installs okay. Debian doesn't guarantee that it works together   
   with other packages.   
   The package is acceptable to Debian according to the rules.   
   In the releases there is a deb package that you   
   can install with apt, and all the documentation goes where it   
   belongs.   
      
   You could do the same. Make a documented gforth distribution   
   in a deb file complete with documentation.   
      
   >   
   >- anton   
      
      
   Groetjes Albert   
   --   
   The Chinese government is satisfied with its military superiority over USA.   
   The next 5 year plan has as primary goal to advance life expectancy   
   over 80 years, like Western Europe.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)