Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 05 Mar 2006 12:03:00 +0100 Claus Färber wrote: > >> Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote: >> > The reason for this is that building (La)TeX documentation >> > >> > * depends on the right number and order of commands to be >> > executed, >> > which one has to find by trial and error (it's very rare that >> > authors upload Makefiles, since usually they aren't needed much) >> > >> > * depends on settings in local configuration files, which may >> > differ >> > from package author to package author and from version to >> > version. >> >> In other words, there is no _complete_ source code for the compiled >> version of the documentation, which violates DFSG #2 (even without the >> font issue). > > Well, it seems so...
Sorry, how do you two come to that conclusion? There's on automated build system. Whether the upstream author writes \OnlyDescription in the dtx file or in his ltxdoc.cfg does not change whether source code is available. Whether he used teTeX 2.0.2 or 3.0 doesn't, either. > If it is really so difficult to figure out how to rebuild, even for > knowledgeable people, then, yes, something is missing. Come on, having a comfortable, or even a sane build system isn't a prerequisite for being free. Typsetting just isn't as automatable as compiling executables with autotools. Especially if you made changes to the sources, there's no alternative to actually looking at the resulting document with your eyes and your subjective aesthetic judgement. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
