Re: Bits from the release team: the plans for etch
Florian Weimer <email@example.com> wrote:
> * Bernhard R. Link:
>> * Florian Weimer <firstname.lastname@example.org> [051025 13:51]:
>>> * Steve Langasek:
>>> > Frank Lichtenheld has already posted an announcement detailing the
>>> > release team's plans for the question of non-DFSG documentation in main.
>>> Just to clarify, is technical documentation that is only available in
>>> non-editable formats (e.g. Postscript files)
>> Little nitpick and petition: Please write "generated Postscript files"
>> in such examples, as postscript files can be perfectly editable and
>> only the existance of easier languages causes the vast majority of
>> postscript files being generated non-editable forms. (As is assembler
>> files currently, or as C source code would be if almost everyone switched
>> to some other language with a compiler generating C code as intermediate
> On systems without digital restrictions managemet without mandatory
> enforcement , it goes without saying that you can change bytes as
> you like, but it is hardly the preferred way of implementing
> Is it really controversial that these problems are bugs? I assumed
> that only the RC status could be subject to debate.
It is for sure not a bug to contain a PostScript file where PostScript
is the preferred form of modification. If you have tetex-base
installed, /usr/share/texmf/dvips/misc/resolution400.ps is a short
example, /usr/share/texmf/dvips/misc/crops.pro is a bit longer.
There are people in this world who can read and program PostScript.
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich