On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 12:27:00 +0200 Ralf Treinen <treinen@free.fr> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 11:57:26AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 11:19:59AM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 11:02:01AM +0200, Samuel Mimram wrote: > > > > > If you agree, could someone (Sven?) have it uploaded? Thanks. > > > > > > I can do that. -Ralf. > > > > Please do it then, while i upload mldonkey. > > I just uploaded the coq-doc package. However, I'm now having > doubts whether it really is DFSG-free. The problem is that the > package does not contain the source in the sense of "the preferred > form of modification", which would be the tex files. > > Some other remarks: > - the coq package is in section "devel" but the coq-doc documentation > is registered in the section "math". This should be made uniform. > IMHO, math would be more appropriate as section for the coq > package > - the debian/rules file should be modernized (DH_COMPAT level 4, > remove cruft like the useless build-stamp target, remove > all the dh_* invocations which are now in comments, etc.) > > -Ralf. Ok for the remarks about the packaging. Those points will be changed in the next upload (of course, I don't think they are worth doing a new upload, especially just before sarge release). I'll try to see if it's possible to get the tex files with upstream. Samuel.
Attachment:
pgpRJPYJczEti.pgp
Description: PGP signature