David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Other stuff that remains to be done is applying the GNU FDL to the > documentation. Weirdly enough, all the existing fdl.texi templates > still have the old FSF address. I am currently communicating with > RMS in order to get that sorted out.
Done. > I am also trying to get a hang about how to deal with GNU maintainer > guidelines and DFSG. I'll have to decide this more or less on my > own according to how I interpret the guidelines, and it may or may > not result in the AUCTeX manuals ending up in Debian nonfree instead > of main, depending on whether the Debian maintainers choose to judge > the standard GNU front and back cover texts (short blurbs) as > constituting non-freedom. Personally, I consider the few words > nothing worth of calling nonfree (since they basically affect only > mass printed copies, something which is not even possible with the > "free" labelled GPL, and contain basically pretty much nothing that > would not also be in the copyright notice and/or license text, which > is unremovable by law, anyway). At the current point of time, I used the boilerplate text in the GNU maintainer guidelines. After reading back and forth over them, I have come to the conclusion that it does not seem like omitting front and back cover texts would see like an option considered for the maintainer. I thought differently before. I consider that pretty annoying (given the current DFSG situation which would have ruled the documentation "free" if without both invariant sections and cover texts), and I have asked RMS whether it would be possible to do without those. It will probably take a few days until he decides either which way. I nevertheless checked in the current state so that people can already check out whether the manual formats well and consistently for them. I also have made the versioning in the manual be generated automatically via an external file version.texi. The example code relies on automake generating this file automatically: as we don't use automake, I do it via configure. As a result, I don't know whether the format of the information is identical with that generated by automake. I also tried fixing the wrong GhostScript executable name on Windows for GhostScript. cygwin is likely still not unproblematic. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ auctex-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel
