Re: Solving the non-free issue for potato
On Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 02:32:05PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> Before someone starts to solve the issue, it is better
> that we have a consensus on this IMHO.
>
> - Is it necessary (and/or possible?) to delete the non-free
> elements from tetex-base_1.0.orig.tar.gz
Yes. It must be done. (See Anthony's post to -devel-announce, I
think it was. May have been -devel. He regards this as one of the
things which will hold up test cycle 3.)
> - tetex-base-1.0/texmf/tex/latex/koma-script/scrartcl.cls is
> of [1998/07/17 v2.5e LaTeX2e KOMA document class] and not of
> [1999/12/29 v2.5h LaTeX2e KOMA document class] which is under
> lppl so koma-script should be tetex-nonfree in potato.
> Is this okay?
Either that, or replace it with the newer version. I prefer to put it
in non-free for potato, as that way, we won't introduce new
incompatabilities at this late stage.
> - tetex-base-1.0/texmf/tex/latex/misc/stmaryrd.sty is of
> [1994/03/03 St Mary's Road symbol package] and it is same
> as the one under lppl so stmaryrd would be in tetex-extra
> in potato. Is this okay?
So long as we use the version which states that it is under lppl.
> - tetex-base-1.0/texmf/doc/latex/seminar/sem-read.me states
> that this is under lppl so seminar would be tetex-extra in
> potato. Is this okay?
So long as this is made clear in the copyright file, and in any of the
individual files if necessary.
> > I
> > am prepared to let Dale sort out woody as part of the big package
> > split, but potato is *really* urgent. I could build it on one of the
>
> Very sorry but who is Dale?
new-maintainer front desk. I of course mean Christoph.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://www.debian.org/~jdg
Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
Reply to: