Francesco Pietra: > > Unfortunately, for dealing with most editors of scientific journals, > and for personal use of the scientific literature, either as author or > referee, neither the readers you mention, nor any one other I know > except acroread, are enough. You don't mention which features the alternatives to Adobe Reader are lacking. > I am also surprised about the Debian policy for deb packages of > scientific code: they provide the last version for testing or sid, > while scientific code is run on stable Debian. So, the developer do > much work for nothing. This is not a special policy for scientific packages, it is the general policy. It always takes a lot of time for a specific package version to become part of a stable release. If this is a serious problem for you, then you should run testing/unstable or, if this is not an option either, try another distribution with shorter release cycles. Alternatively, you can always build from source. Or, if you need a newer version of a package built for stable, you can try finding it on backports.org. J. -- Scientists know what they are talking about. [Agree] [Disagree] <http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature