Hello, On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 10:15:20 +0200 Ralf Treinen <treinen@free.fr> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 10:14:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 10:00:34AM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 12:14:46PM +0200, Samuel Mimram wrote: > > > > > > > BTW it would be nice to have coq-doc updated too. I'm going to > > > > see with the maintainer (who does not seem to be in d-o-m) if > > > > some packages are planned. > > > > > > The maintainer of the coq-doc package is the Judicaël Courant, the > > > former maintainer of the coq package (formerly sponsored by me). > > > Unfortunately, Judicaël has gone AWOL. Samuel, please go ahead and > > > take the coq-doc package over. > > > > > > However, I am not convinced that packaging postscript > > > documentation(as it is done with the current version of the > > > package) is really useful. You might consider packaging an html > > > version instead. > > > > I think it is usefull. But packaging html stuff too would be nice. > > We have until tomorrow only anyway, so i think cosmetic changes > > would have to wait for later. > > If you decide to keep the ps documentation then please consider > splitting into two separate packages (like doc-ps and doc-html) > > -Ralf. > -- An NMU is already ready on the svn. It contains both ps and html documentation. I'd rather have this package uploaded like this and have a post-sarge split (feel free to fill a wishlist bug), else it would have to go through the NEW queue which has been quite long lately. If you agree, could someone (Sven?) have it uploaded? Thanks. Cheers, Samuel.
Attachment:
pgptMK5Cb64WQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature