Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #241811 > unrolled thread

Man pages for gcc

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Man pages for gcc "Paul M. Foster" <paulf@quillandmouse.com> - 2021-10-31 22:10 +0100
    Re: Man pages for gcc Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-10-31 22:20 +0100
      Debian and FSF docs (was: Man pages for gcc) Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-10-31 22:40 +0100
        Re: Debian and FSF docs (was: Man pages for gcc) Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-12-10 12:50 +0100
          Re: Debian and FSF docs (was: Man pages for gcc) "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2021-12-10 18:20 +0100
            Re: Debian and FSF docs (was: Man pages for gcc) Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-12-10 18:40 +0100
            Re: Debian and FSF docs Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-12-10 19:10 +0100
              Re: Debian and FSF docs Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2021-12-11 01:30 +0100
                Re: Debian and FSF docs Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-12-11 01:50 +0100
                  Re: Debian and FSF docs Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2021-12-11 05:20 +0100
                    Re: Debian and FSF docs <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-12-11 08:50 +0100
                      Re: Debian and FSF docs Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2021-12-11 16:50 +0100
                        Re: Debian and FSF docs tomas@tuxteam.de - 2021-12-11 19:10 +0100
    Re: Man pages for gcc Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2021-10-31 22:30 +0100
      Re: Man pages for gcc Nate Bargmann <n0nb@n0nb.us> - 2021-10-31 23:10 +0100
        Re: Man pages for gcc Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2021-11-01 16:10 +0100
    Re: Man pages for gcc Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2021-10-31 22:40 +0100
    Re: Man pages for gcc Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> - 2021-11-07 08:10 +0100
      Re: Man pages for gcc Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-12-10 12:30 +0100

#241811 — Man pages for gcc

Folks:

I'm sure everyone but me knows this, but I can't find a man page for 
gcc. There must be some docs somewhere. First question: why isn't there 
a man page? Second question: what docs are available (or what package 
provides them)? Running Debian 11.

Paul

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#241812

On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 04:58:34PM -0400, Paul M. Foster wrote:
> I'm sure everyone but me knows this, but I can't find a man page for gcc.
> There must be some docs somewhere. First question: why isn't there a man
> page? Second question: what docs are available (or what package provides
> them)? Running Debian 11.

The documentation for gcc is in a separate package, in the non-free
section.

unicorn:~$ apt-cache show gcc-doc
Package: gcc-doc
Source: gcc-doc-defaults (5:21)
Version: 5:10.1.0-1
[...]
Depends: gcc-10-doc (>= 10.1.0-1~)
[...]
Section: contrib/doc

unicorn:~$ apt-cache show gcc-10-doc
[...]
Section: non-free/doc


This is because GNU releases their documentation under a different license
than their source code.  And Debian considers the GNU documentation
license to be non-free (rightly so, because it prohibits distributing
modified versions).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241816 — Debian and FSF docs (was: Man pages for gcc)

> This is because GNU releases their documentation under a different license
> than their source code.  And Debian considers the GNU documentation
> license to be non-free (rightly so, because it prohibits distributing
> modified versions).

FWIW, it's not nearly as clear cut as you make it sound, because it does
not prevent distribution of all modified versions.

It does require one particular section to be kept unmodified (IIRC it's
the section that promotes the FSF philosophy), but the bulk is Free in
the usual sense of allowing redistribution of modified versions.

I find this state of affair rather sad and am disappointed by both
Debian and the FSF for not finding a compromise.  It ends up promoting
the use of the non-free repository, which I think neither project wants.


        Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242896 — Re: Debian and FSF docs (was: Man pages for gcc)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Du, 31 oct 21, 17:37:10, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > This is because GNU releases their documentation under a different license
> > than their source code.  And Debian considers the GNU documentation
> > license to be non-free (rightly so, because it prohibits distributing
> > modified versions).
> 
> FWIW, it's not nearly as clear cut as you make it sound, because it does
> not prevent distribution of all modified versions.
> 
> It does require one particular section to be kept unmodified (IIRC it's
> the section that promotes the FSF philosophy), but the bulk is Free in
> the usual sense of allowing redistribution of modified versions.

As far as I understand[1] further modifications can add other invariant 
sections as well and humans have demonstrated a remarkable capacity of 
abusing such loopholes.
 
> I find this state of affair rather sad and am disappointed by both
> Debian and the FSF for not finding a compromise.  It ends up promoting
> the use of the non-free repository, which I think neither project wants.

At the very least Debian could split non-free into sections or add more 
areas (non-free firmware being another obvious candidate for splitting 
out).

[1] https://wiki.debian.org/GFDLPositionStatement

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242920 — Re: Debian and FSF docs (was: Man pages for gcc)

On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 12:41:01PM +0100, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Du, 31 oct 21, 17:37:10, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > > This is because GNU releases their documentation under a different license
> > > than their source code.  And Debian considers the GNU documentation
> > > license to be non-free (rightly so, because it prohibits distributing
> > > modified versions).
> > 
> > FWIW, it's not nearly as clear cut as you make it sound, because it does
> > not prevent distribution of all modified versions.
> > 
> > It does require one particular section to be kept unmodified (IIRC it's
> > the section that promotes the FSF philosophy), but the bulk is Free in
> > the usual sense of allowing redistribution of modified versions.
> 
> As far as I understand[1] further modifications can add other invariant 
> sections as well and humans have demonstrated a remarkable capacity of 
> abusing such loopholes.
>  
> > I find this state of affair rather sad and am disappointed by both
> > Debian and the FSF for not finding a compromise.  It ends up promoting
> > the use of the non-free repository, which I think neither project wants.
> 

It's _not_ a Debian problem in one sense: it's the FSF's licence. Or we 
could say "it's in non-free - not part of Debian - so we really don't care
and if it breaks, well so what"

> At the very least Debian could split non-free into sections or add more 
> areas (non-free firmware being another obvious candidate for splitting 
> out).
> 

Do wait a little while and there may well ba e GR to that effect.

All the very best, as ever,

Andy CAter


> [1] https://wiki.debian.org/GFDLPositionStatement
> 
> Kind regards,
> Andrei
> -- 
> http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242922 — Re: Debian and FSF docs (was: Man pages for gcc)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Vi, 10 dec 21, 17:17:24, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 12:41:01PM +0100, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> 
> > At the very least Debian could split non-free into sections or add more 
> > areas (non-free firmware being another obvious candidate for splitting 
> > out).
> > 
> 
> Do wait a little while and there may well ba e GR to that effect.

I guessed something like this might happen based on Steve's mail to 
-vote ;)

As much as I hate to admit it, the free installer is at the moment a 
major hurdle to new Debian users, but I'm also not convinced a general 
exception for all (distributable) firmware is necessarily the right 
answer either.

Let's see what the Project decides.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242926 — Re: Debian and FSF docs

>> > I find this state of affair rather sad and am disappointed by both
>> > Debian and the FSF for not finding a compromise.  It ends up promoting
>> > the use of the non-free repository, which I think neither project wants.
> It's _not_ a Debian problem in one sense: it's the FSF's licence.

I doubt pointing fingers will help resolve this problem.

I think this problem should be easy to solve, all it takes is for both
Debian and the FSF to agree that this situation is simply unacceptable,
and then work together to find a solution.

> Or we could say "it's in non-free - not part of Debian - so we really
> don't care and if it breaks, well so what"

That's a cop out.  Just as is FSF's position that it's Debian's problem.
It means both the FSF and Debian consider the current situation
as acceptable.


        Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242933 — Re: Debian and FSF docs

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Dec 10, 2021, 12:01 PM Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
wrote:

> >> > I find this state of affair rather sad and am disappointed by both
> >> > Debian and the FSF for not finding a compromise.  It ends up promoting
> >> > the use of the non-free repository, which I think neither project
> wants.
> > It's _not_ a Debian problem in one sense: it's the FSF's licence.
>
> I doubt pointing fingers will help resolve this problem.
>
> I think this problem should be easy to solve, all it takes is for both
> Debian and the FSF to agree that this situation is simply unacceptable,
> and then work together to find a solution.
>

Well the difference in views between the two is different at a fundamental
level. So neither side accepts the others' view as fundamentally compatible
on the main issue: what is free software, of any species?

> Or we could say "it's in non-free - not part of Debian - so we really
> > don't care and if it breaks, well so what"
>
> That's a cop out.  Just as is FSF's position that it's Debian's problem.
> It means both the FSF and Debian consider the current situation
> as acceptable.
>

Again, I would phrase it as the expected outcome from a permanent
difference in outlook. Ubuntu, for example, didn't really see Debian in
that "Debian view" either. So they took it in their own direction, they do
a great job in their way. They are allowed, that's the value of open-source
licensing and free software. Ubuntu has taken flack from some people for
their approach over time. Generally they ignore it.

        Stefan
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242934 — Re: Debian and FSF docs

> Well the difference in views between the two is different at a fundamental
> level. So neither side accepts the others' view as fundamentally compatible
> on the main issue: what is free software, of any species?

Both side have (and will) adjust their acts based on practical
considerations, so fundamental disagreements on some details *can* be
overcome if necessary.  It's just that currently they foolishly don't
realize that their intransigence works against them (IMO, obviously).


        Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242941 — Re: Debian and FSF docs

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Dec 10, 2021, 6:40 PM Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
wrote:

> > Well the difference in views between the two is different at a
> fundamental
> > level. So neither side accepts the others' view as fundamentally
> compatible
> > on the main issue: what is free software, of any species?
>
> Both side have (and will) adjust their acts based on practical
> considerations, so fundamental disagreements on some details *can* be
> overcome if necessary.  It's just that currently they foolishly don't
> realize that their intransigence works against them (IMO, obviously).
>

That I agree with. And it mirrors the earlier FSF/linux-kernel "labeling"
friction. But I never saw that as a Torvalds vs. Stallman conflict as many
presented it, the issue is fundamental.
And everyone from MSoft and IBM to AWS and Google know how to exploit it.

        Stefan
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242951 — Re: Debian and FSF docs

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 10:09:39PM -0600, Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2021, 6:40 PM Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> wrote:

[...]

> > Both side have (and will) adjust their acts based on practical
> > considerations, so fundamental disagreements on some details *can* be
> > overcome if necessary.

Yes, that's my take, too.

> That I agree with. And it mirrors the earlier FSF/linux-kernel "labeling"
> friction. But I never saw that as a Torvalds vs. Stallman conflict as many
> presented it,

...even our little corner of the world gotta have its yellow press ;-)

> the issue is fundamental.

That's right, but still there's much to win and little to lose by
talking and trying to resolve things.

> And everyone from MSoft and IBM to AWS and Google know how to exploit it.

among others, yes.

Cheers
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242965 — Re: Debian and FSF docs

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sat, Dec 11, 2021, 1:39 AM <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 10:09:39PM -0600, Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 10, 2021, 6:40 PM Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> > wrote:
>
> [...]
> ......
> > That I agree with. And it mirrors the earlier FSF/linux-kernel "labeling"
> > friction. But I never saw that as a Torvalds vs. Stallman conflict as
> many
> > presented it,
>
> ...even our little corner of the world gotta have its yellow press ;-)
>

It's not just yellow press. The American approach to any public issue is to
turn it into a personal contest between individuals. That's for one reason
only: so we can ignore the real larger issue, and make sure we never solve
it.


> Cheers
> --
> t
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242970 — Re: Debian and FSF docs

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 09:46:58AM -0600, Nicholas Geovanis wrote:

[...]

> It's not just yellow press. The American approach to any public issue is to
> turn it into a personal contest between individuals. That's for one reason
> only: so we can ignore the real larger issue, and make sure we never solve
> it.

I'm sure there's no specific American thing about this antipattern. I
live in Germany and observe it around here as well.

As to yellow press... it doesn't own exclusively that antipattern, but
it definitely feeds on it ;-)

Cheers
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241814

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 4:07 PM Paul M. Foster <paulf@quillandmouse.com>
wrote:

> Folks:
>
> I'm sure everyone but me knows this, but I can't find a man page for
> gcc. There must be some docs somewhere. First question: why isn't there
> a man page? Second question: what docs are available (or what package
> provides them)? Running Debian 11.
>

The info command is what you want for gcc. You may need to install the
package for gcc info files. Another set of commands you might need info
files for are coreutils. Try "info coreutils".

These are Gnu/FSF projects and handled a bit differently. I think you'll
also want the gcc book available at the Gnu gcc site.

Paul
>
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241817

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

* On 2021 31 Oct 16:27 -0500, Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
 
> The info command is what you want for gcc. You may need to install the
> package for gcc info files. Another set of commands you might need info
> files for are coreutils. Try "info coreutils".

While info is probably installed, a much better user experience is the
'pinfo' package since it uses Lynx like motion and color highlighting
for hyperlinks.

- Nate

-- 
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."
Web: https://www.n0nb.us
Projects: https://github.com/N0NB
GPG fingerprint: 82D6 4F6B 0E67 CD41 F689 BBA6 FB2C 5130 D55A 8819

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241829

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 5:05 PM Nate Bargmann <n0nb@n0nb.us> wrote:

> * On 2021 31 Oct 16:27 -0500, Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
>
> > The info command is what you want for gcc. You may need to install the
> > package for gcc info files. Another set of commands you might need info
> > files for are coreutils. Try "info coreutils".
>
> While info is probably installed, a much better user experience is the
> 'pinfo' package since it uses Lynx like motion and color highlighting
> for hyperlinks.
>

Never used pinfo, thanks. I'll try it. You see, over time my browsers get
more primitive. I'm in the last trench now, it's curl and wget now :-)

Which reminds me, when using windowed character mode tools like these, it's
important to set the terminal type correctly in the Linux sessions
environment variables. But also make sure it lines up with the terminal
type in the terminal emulation software you may be using. Otherwise the
screen is soup.

- Nate
>
> --
> "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
> possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."
> Web: https://www.n0nb.us
> Projects: https://github.com/N0NB
> GPG fingerprint: 82D6 4F6B 0E67 CD41 F689 BBA6 FB2C 5130 D55A 8819
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241815

Paul M. Foster wrote: 
> Folks:
> 
> I'm sure everyone but me knows this, but I can't find a man page for gcc.
> There must be some docs somewhere. First question: why isn't there a man
> page? Second question: what docs are available (or what package provides
> them)? Running Debian 11.

gcc-doc has the man pages; they are in non-free.

Yes, it's ironic.

-dsr-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241931

Paul M. Foster wrote:

> Folks:
>
> I'm sure everyone but me knows this, but I can't find a man
> page for gcc.

Everyone knows it ... but this question has still been asked
one zillion times. I personally do not mind one bit you asking
it here, but Google is faster if you care about such things :)

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242893

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Du, 07 nov 21, 08:08:51, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Paul M. Foster wrote:
> 
> > Folks:
> >
> > I'm sure everyone but me knows this, but I can't find a man
> > page for gcc.
> 
> Everyone knows it ... but this question has still been asked
> one zillion times. I personally do not mind one bit you asking
> it here, but Google is faster if you care about such things :)

It probably belongs in an FAQ somewhere, if only there was something 
like that for debian-user... ;)

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web