tag 614525 - pending thanks Hi Joerg On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 09:26:33AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > >> [...] It is doubtful that the PostScript files are > >> the source code referred to by DFSG item 2. More likely is that the > >> source files are TeX documents. > > > Cool, where is the agreed clearer version of DFSG 2 that says what it > > means by source code? > > > I feel it's a grey area, so if the PS files aren't too difficult to > > reconstruct, I'd still let them stay. > > Wouldnt pass NEW with *those* .ps only. Yes, PS can be source/preferred > form for modification for stuff to, there are those people who write it > directly, and thats fine. But in this case its pretty clear the source/preferred > form for modification is a tex document, so we would request that. Ok, thanks for too the point of view from ftp-masters. I have not checked, it yet, but then the same problem may arise for 'multimix', which I encountered as it FTBFS too due to missing 'ghostscript' for ps2pdf in Build-Depends [1]. [1] http://bugs.debian.org/618031 I have cancelled the NMU for the moment. Bests Salvatore
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature