[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [RFR] templates://auctex/{auctex/templates}

Quoting David Kastrup (dak@gnu.org):
> Justin B Rye <jbr@edlug.org.uk> writes:
> [...]
> I have stated my point, repeatedly, and specified where the upstream,
> carefully worded package description is to be found.  I am not a Debian
> developer and not responsible if they choose to ignore the upstream
> text.
> I have also repeated about four times the reasoning why
> preview-latex-style should neither suggest nor recommend or require
> AUCTeX.  There is absolutely no point in continuing the repetition as it
> gets neither more nor less valid in this manner.  If I fail to convince
> you, that's that.
> I will clearly not waste any more time on this.

Then I'm afraid we all wasted a lot of time.

There is probably some kind of misunderstandig here:

- Justin and I are working on a project that reviews the descriptions
of packages in the Debian archive, whatever they are. We are anything
but specialists of these packages or the software they provide. We are
even not involved in these packages' management and/or development
except during the brief moment we're working on their description.
I won't even comment on my own ability to understand Tex-related
stuff, except as a simple user (I happen to do all my presentation
work with LaTex and that's barely all)

  The first goal of that work is to improve the use of English
language (Justin is a native speaker, originating from the UK. I am
not one: I just happen to have pretty clear ideas about what a Debian
package should have in its description, which is the key for our users
to decide whether they use it or not.

- You (David) are upstream for one of these packages and you happen to
read the Debian package "PTS" and more particularly
auctex@packages.debian.org. You are not the Debian maintainer of this
package and clearly don't want to. You of course have the best idea of
what your work is good for and how it should be described...:-)

- Frank Küster who spoke in that thread too, can be defined as one of
the TeX gurus in Debian and does a trememndous work maintaining Debian
packages for many TeX-related stuff. He has a very good idea about how
TeX thigns are organized and "advetized" in Debian.

That discussion went in many directions but, as Justin made it clear
in his last message, our ultimate goal is to improve the *package
description*, ie the one *and only* way our users have in order to
decide whether they need to install the package and answer the
question "What is this package good for me" and "Do I need it".

The blocker is the preview-latex-style description:

Package: preview-latex-style
Homepage: http://www.gnu.org/software/auctex/preview-latex.html
Description: style files to support LaTeX output previewing in Emacs
 This package provides style files that enable previewing of equations,
 figures or other LaTeX environments. It combines folding with in-source
 previewing to give a true WYSIWYG experience in the source buffer
 without sacrificing control. This utility comes with its own manual.

So, let me ask a very last basic question to both upstream (You, David) and
Debian maintainers (apparently, Davide G. M. Salvetti who is the
official maintainer is either not very responsive....or does not want
to comment):

Do you think that the above is OK to describe (your software|your

In any case, we will move on, either by proposing this...or by
proposing something else, which can only come with your help. We have
dozens of other packages that are waiting for this work, indeed.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: