What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML?equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Frank Küster wrote:
> Don Armstrong <don <at> debian.org> writes:
> > Then why distribute the original PDFs at all in that case?
> Because the purpose of the document is to show the differences
> between several (free as well as non-free) fonts, and help the user
> make a choice.
So then distribute in main the document containing the free fonts, and
in non-free the document containing free and non-free fonts. Users who
wish to only use main aren't going to be interested in the non-free
fonts, and a document comparing them is going to be fairly useless,
whereas a document comparing the free fonts available in main is
> > Just distribute the recreations. You're going to have to
> > distribute them at some point if bugs in the documentation are
> > filed, so you might as well just start distributing them.
> Many packages have enough important bugs, plus a good relation to a
> quickly reacting upstream, that this won't happen.
If this was a case of a quicly reacting upstream, I would have thought
that the tex source for the PDFs would have materialized during the
course of this discussion. [I mean, if the upstream is able to quickly
react, surely they've got them and can give them to someone?]
You could say she lived on the edge... Well, maybe not exactly on the edge,
just close enough to watch other people fall off.
-- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch8.htm
|All times are GMT. The time now is 08:10 AM.|
VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.