Re: argp: Correct documentation

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

The gnulib documentation calls the GNU based systems for "glibc
platform"; I suggested that this was changed but only got unfriendly
pushback from Bruno.

The gnulib manual uses the phrase to detonate a list of operating
systems, for example

  Portability problems fixed by Gnulib:
  @itemize
  @item
  This variable is missing on all non-glibc platforms:
  macOS 11.1, FreeBSD 13.0, NetBSD 9.0, OpenBSD 6.7, Minix 3.1.8, AIX 5.1, 
HP-UX 11, IRIX 6.5, Solaris 11.4, Cygwin 2.9, mingw, MSVC 14, Android 9.0.
  @end itemize

  Portability problems not fixed by Gnulib:
  @itemize
  @end itemize

The suggestion was to use "GNU systems" or similar wording.

   Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
   > 
   >    Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
   >    > Does a system become a `glibc platform' if one uses gnulib?
   > 
   >    No, it doesn't, because
   >      - the term 'platform' or 'system' denotes the basic OS + base 
libraries,
   >      - Gnulib does not emcompass glibc.
   > 
   > Ok, so you agree that there is no such thing as a "glibc platform",
   > seeing that glibc is not "basic OS + base libraries".  So it makes
   > sense to not use that term.

   It's pointless to do hairsplitting like this. We use the term "platform"
   extensively in the Gnulib documentation for 15 years:
     https://www.gnu.org/software/gnulib/manual/html_node/Target-Platforms.html
   and no one has ever asked for a definition, nor reported that this 
documentation
   was ambiguous.

   >    > I could not find this decision in those two references, both are pages
   >    > from Debian, and nothing from RMS on the topic.
   > 
   >    You can trust my memory on this statement, even though I can't find
   >    the precise mail where RMS announced this decision. It was probably
   >    in 2001.
   > 
   > It has little to do with trust, if there is such an "announcment" it
   > would be useful to put it up on gnu.org.

   There is at least this FAQ on gnu.org: https://www.gnu.org/non-gnu/glibc-bsd/

   > What matters is the GNU project, and what we say.

   You can do advocacy of GNU and the GNU system in many places. But lists of
   platforms in *technical documentation* are not the proper place to do so.

   > The text over all is messy on other points as well:
   > 
   >    Portability problems fixed by Gnulib:
   >    @itemize
   >   +@item
   >   +This variable is missing on all non-glibc platforms:
   >   +macOS 11.1, FreeBSD 13.0, NetBSD 9.0, OpenBSD 6.7, Minix 3.1.8, AIX 
5.1, HP-UX 11, IRIX 6.5, Solaris 11.4, Cygwin 2.9, mingw, MSVC 14, Android 9.0.
   >   
   >   ...
   > 
   > Does this mean that FreeBSD 12 supports it?  What amount Minix 2?

   These questions are irrelevant. Any Gnulib user will want portability
   to FreeBSD versions ≥ X, where X depends. Therefore, if they want
   portability to FreeBSD 12, they will also want portability to FreeBSD 13.
   If a feature is not available on FreeBSD 13, it therefore does not
   matter whether it is present on FreeBSD 12, 11, 6.4, or 1.0.

   > Are
   > these "all" the platforms, seeing that it is an exhaustive list in
   > detail.

   See 
https://www.gnu.org/software/gnulib/manual/html_node/Target-Platforms.html

   > We avoid
   > mentioning them out of principle, since we do not want to promote
   > them.

   Are you saying that it *promotes* HP-UX, to state that HP-UX 11 lacks
   a certain variable?

   > Why isn't freedos listed?

   See 
https://www.gnu.org/software/gnulib/manual/html_node/Target-Platforms.html

   > Is this list manually updated each,
   > and every time those companies or projects make a release? That seems
   > like useless churn.

   Please leave it up to me, to decide on what tasks/patches I spend or waste
   my time. I don't comment publicly on the cost/benefit ratio of your tasks/
   patches either.

   Bruno