On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 11:23:21PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > I think that I will provide a PDF, and ship the .doc files (as I they > are the source...). If the only reason you ship them is that they are source, be sure to not ship them in the binary package, but only in the source package (which is retrieved by a lot less people). This is the case if the doc doesn't provide anything which the PDF doesn't provide (which is likely). Also, I'd like to add a vote in favour of asking upstream to choose a better format for distribution. > Also, there are plenty of tools in Debian with which > the users can nicely display their contents. Yes, that means it isn't a very big problem. Although personally I'd be pretty annoyed by it, since the only reason I use those tools is because of people who send me such junk. Since I managed to train most of my friends into using proper formats, I hardly ever use them, and am not comfortable with them. They are too much Word-clones to be nice to work with. ;-) > A last option I am investigating is to print them as pdf via command > line. That sounds reasonable. > If I do this in a arch:any package, will it be build on a > powerful buildd ? I don't think I understand the question. Any buildd should be able to run OpenOffice. It may be a bit of a demanding thing, especially for just one manual. You may consider splitting off an arch:all part for it. However, it's probably better to just convince upstream to use a better format and distribute that without change. Thanks Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature