Re: Chasing RC bugs in texlive packages
Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> wrote:
> I have merged them and discussion will continue on 356853.
Good.
> Frank did a recollection in April, coming down to
>
> * bbm fonts [OPEN]
> Frank mentioned that there is something on the way via Karl Berry
> is there any progress?
No idea, heard nothing.
> * concmath [CLOSED???]
> the latex and font packages are under LPPL
> see CTAN/macros/latex/contrib/concmath/README
> and CTAN/fonts/concmath/README
> so what is the problem here, can someone tell me this?
I have contacted Ulrik about other license issues, and I guess I
mentioned concmath too, but didn't Cc it to this bug (it's probably in a
bug report of tetex-doc about fontinst docs). Consider this fixed.
Err, wait, is the catalogue up-to-date?
> * Donald Arsenau files [OPEN]
> Frank, AFAIR you had some discussion with Donald. Did you
> get an email at least stating the freeness, so we could include
> the email in the copyright file ...
I never got an answer. I think I even asked on the TL list whether
anyone has better connections to him, but don't remember any result.
> * eepic docs [OPEN]
> I assume it is the file eepic.tex which lacks any statement.
> Puh, it was written in 1988, du we really expect to get any
> answer from Conrad Kwok <kwok@iris.ucdavis.edu>
> No idea if this email is still working and he is still there.
> One is taking this up and trying to contact him?
I think we should at least give it two tries (direct mail, 10 minutes
looking for the name via google and ucdavis.edu). But if that doesn't
result in a prompt answer, I would remove the docs. Anyone still using
eepic will know how to get it from CTAN.
Updating the catalogue might be harder, since I guess it treats docs and
style as one entity.
> * ae [CLOSED ON CTAN]
> This is already solved, updated package is on CTAN
> I guess we could include simply the MANIFEST, COPYING, and
> README file from CTAN.
... and make sure the catalogue is up-to-date, for generating our
copyright file.
> * amslatex [HALF-OPEN]
> Positive answer from AMS, but no progress after this
> Anyone heard anything else?
Well, we've got a timeline for the next release but no answer to my
"will this include the license fix?" question. If we get this answer,
this can get a lenny-ignore tag for sure, without an answer maybe too,
based on the older information which gave the etch-ignore.
The new version won't be in lenny anyway, if we follow our plan not to
go for TL 08 (and I see no reasons to change that decision).
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Reply to: