Re: coq-doc package

[Ralf Treinen <treinen@free.fr>]

On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 11:02:01AM +0200, Samuel Mimram wrote:
> 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.

Makes sense.

> If you agree, could someone (Sven?) have it uploaded? Thanks.

I can do that. -Ralf.
--