Re: Bits from the release team: the plans for etch
Florian Weimer <email@example.com> wrote:
> * Miles Bader:
>> Florian Weimer <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>>> There are people in this world who can read and program PostScript.
>>> Sure, and it's the preferred form of modifcation for removing
>>> ink-wasting background images from Powerpoint presentations, but: This
>>> is not the kind of modifcation I'm talking about. Imagine you have to
>>> update the documentation to include an additional paragraph.
>> You don't quite seem to be grokking the concept of Postscript as a
>> source language.
> I don't care about the cases where Postscript is used as a source
> language. I've seen in some cases, sure, but it was artwork, and not
> documentation extending over several pages.
Please have a look at the files I cited in an other mail in this thread.
> I care about dvips output where we do not have the original source
> file (a LaTeX document). Or PDF files which come from Word documents
> which aren't publicly available. Is this so hard to understand?
We care about that too. But in addition, we care about proper phrasing.
It is, of course, okay to say "Documents where the preferred form for
modification is not available cannot be included in Debian". It is not
okay to say "Documents that are only available in non-editable formats
(e.g. PostScript) cannot be included in Debian", because PostScript is
an editable format, and in some cases ist *is* the preferred form for
> Discussing the "what is source code?" aspect is certainly a nice way
> to sidestep the pretty much relevant question whether such issues
> should be RC bugs for etch.
The existing, real issues should be RC. Bugs that only show that people
haven't understood what source code is should be closed.
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich