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

Re: RFS: ITA: tex4ht -- LaTeX and TeX for Hypertext (HTML)

Dear Frank,

Thanks for the detailed response. This mail is a bit long please bear with

On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 12:20:32PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> I think you should include 1.3a and put a remark into the file
> explaining why. Furthermore, you should contact upstream and talk with
> him about a rewording of the sentence about program renaming: The
> exception from the old LPPL restrictions that he grants might already be
> covered by LPPL-1.3b, and he might want to use that wording or simply
> drop it.

I have amending the copyright file. Upstream author is using 1.3.
I will e-mail him regarding the precise form of the modification 
restriction. This restriction also creates some trickiness for
/etc/tex4ht/tex4ht.env --- which is a conffile after all!

> * debian/changelog:

I have merged all the changelog entries into one.

>   version - it's from the yearly "release", isn't it?. Also, the new
>   version is called 1.0 - is there a reason for this?

I will make an enquiry with Eitan Gurari regarding this. Currently I have
reverted to the earlier versioning scheme with the upstream addition of
the time of modification as well.

>   Please do not close such bugs in the changelog - see 

Omitted. I clearly should have read developer's reference more carefully!

> - Your diff.gz contains quite some stuff that does not seem to be
>   Debian-specific - e.g. temp/Makefile, manpages. If you or older Debian
>   maintainers wrote it, was it submitted upstream?  If not, where did
>   you get it from?

The files were created by Andrew Gray (previous Debian maintainer). It is 
unlikely that these will be used upstream as explained in README.src.

>   To your Point 2: For me, the interesting reason for writing a Makefile
>   to create the C code would not be to "verify" that it has indeed been
>   created from the literate programming sources.  Rather I'd be
>   interested in being able to make changes.  One could say that what you
>   wrote is about fulfilling the wording of the DFSG, while what I want
>   is to be able to use the freedom the spirit of the DFSG gives me. I
>   suggest you adapt the wording.

I agree with you and have made the changes.
A much clearer (IMHO) version of README.src is in the newer version.

>   As a solution for your third point you could simply use a sed script
>   to replace the version date by the number found in the sources. Or you
>   could try to fix the creation process - I'm sure there must be a way
>   to do it with TeX.  I might be able to help if you provide what you
>   wrote so far.

What I have is not fit for publication but the shell script for converting
tex4ht-c.tex is enclosed. The result matches the existing file precisely
and should work for any modifications made to tex4ht-c.tex as well.

What I am planning to do is to provide a mechanism for someone who *makes
changes* to the files in /src to incorporate these into a new Debian

>   I'd prefer to have some information in the package about which other
>   packages provide the /usr/bin/ht alternative.

There actually used to be a package called "ht". I have referred to the
relevant bug (#101220) in the postinst so that this can be changed if

On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 02:21:55PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> > Somehow off this list I got the URL where one can download the packages
> > you prepared. 
> Which is 
> http://www.imsc.res.in/~kapil/debian/tex4ht/

I'm sorry. I just forgot to check that debian-mentor's was on the cc.

>   By the way, did you incorporate the other bugfixes on this page, or are
>   they already in the current version?

The current version incorporates all bugfixes over the last year. The
documentation typos have been fixed in my version.

> * Are you sure that it makes sense to install all the fonts in
>   /usr/share/texmf/tex4ht/ht-fonts/? In particular, what is the purpose
>   in having /usr/share/texmf/tex4ht/ht-fonts/win?

These fonts are used if one wants to generate an html file for
incorporation into MS Word. This is perhaps still not a good enough reason :)

Once again many thanks for your detailed suggestions.


 http://www.imsc.res.in/~kapil/gpg.html for my Public Key.
1024D/5416E5B8 2004-10-13 Kapil Hari Paranjape <kapil@imsc.res.in>
1024g/3BDF565B 2004-10-13
Key fingerprint = F160 CBB9 03C8 425D 4BBA  79F4 491F 8FDA 5416 E5B8

Reply to: