On 24/04/06, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's not like we could not make use of somebody who was willing to > work out the spec file details before release (so that we don't ship > tarballs with unfunctional spec files). If you could be persuaded to > put some work into that which can be used in the upstream version of > AUCTeX as well, we'd need a copyright assignment to the FSF. I can > send you the necessary form if you'd like to consider that. >
I'm more than happy to do that, and will contribute back wherever I can. Although I'm not sure I'll get things done "before release" depending on when that is, as I only really have time to work on this at weekends. I'm not sure how well it will work though, as I don't have access to machines running Suse, so won't be able to check out changes I make on distributions other than Fedora Core, but we can see :) [As an example, following your comments about conflicting with preview.sty shipped with tetex, I was perplexed as to why I had missed this, as I specifically made sure I wasn't stomping on tetex files with the auctex package. Turns out that Fedora's tetex maintainers strips out the preview stuff from tetex: (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=168859) I wonder if future upstream tetex releases will include all or none of preview?] > Of course, having a useful downstream Fedora version would already be > an improvement, but I guess it would save all involved parties work if > we could fix this upstream. Sounds entirely reasonable. Best, Jonathan. _______________________________________________ auctex-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel
