Re: Packaging bslib + licensing issues
Hi Nilesh,
Am Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 07:11:55PM +0530 schrieb Nilesh Patra:
> >Its simply since we gave ourself rules and we asked people to stick to
> >those rules letter by letter.
>
> I really feel like proposing a GR right away, so we get above these hard bound rules and * actually * work on user experience
My pragmatic estimation is that this kind of GR will drain a huge lot of
time from you and has very low chances to succeed. We have other
examples like PDF formated documentations. (This was my motivation to
invented Files-Excluded to have a simple way to do boring work.) It
does not make any sense to strip PDF documentation from a source package
... but I do not see a good chance that this will be changed easily.
Working on an actual package is boring but overall less frustrating,
IMHO.
> All your findings/questions:
>
> * Why are three versions of bootstrap needed?
> * Is it possible to provide sources for font binaries?
> * If not, can you adapt to the ones that are in debian?
> * Are there more fallbacks that you could introduce
> * Is it possible to simplify licensing for binaries?
>
> ..... So on
OK, I'll do so later.
Kind regards
Andreas.
> >> > > [1]: https://github.com/rstudio/bslib/issues/412
> >> > > [2]: https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#The_SIL_Open_Font_License
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: