Quoting David Kastrup (firstname.lastname@example.org): > Justin B Rye <email@example.com> 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 firstname.lastname@example.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 package)? 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.
Description: Digital signature