Re: RFS: scribus
* Frank Lichtenheld <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2004-02-20 17:00:58 +0100]:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 10:05:15AM -0500, O. Moskalenko wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I'm looking for a sponsor for uploading updated packages of scribus -
> I may be interested to sponsor this, but I will take a look at
> the packages first.
Great. Please do.
> > the best Linux Desktop Publishing program. It's been orphaned by the
> > maintainer and I submitted an ITP after 3 weeks of wait or so. Scribus
> The proper procedure would be to retitle the bug to an ITA and mark
> yourself as owner of this bug.
> See http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/index.html#howto-o
I will change that. Thank you.
> > is being very rapidly developed and offers features rivaling and in
> > some places surpassing those of Adobe Pagemaker and Quark Xpress. It has
> > professional DTP capability and definitely the best in linuxland PDF
> > export. It'd be a shame not to keep it updated in our favorite distro.
> > The latest scribus version in unstable is 1.1.4. I've been maintaining a
> > private repository for cvs builds for few weeks. Now that 1.1.5 is out
> > and the development is forging ahead to 1.2.0 I'd like to get 1.2.0.cvs
> > packages into unstable.
> Is the CVS version stable enough? With Sarge hopefully-not-so-far-away
> it would be good to know if you think that your version will be stable
> enough for a Debian stable release in time... Or if it would be better
> to get 1.1.5 in testing first before beginning with 1.2.0.cvs
The upstream people go to great lengths to keep the cvs stable as that
is what most of their users run due to the speed of development. For
example jpeg compression during pdf export just went in a day or two
ago. 1.1.5 is going to become behind what real users of DTP will want
to use in the matter of days. I can get an 1.1.5 built, but it has bugs
that have been fixed in the cvs, so cvs is "more stable" than the
> Frank Lichtenheld <email@example.com>
> www: http://www.djpig.de/