On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 10:08:02AM +0100, Helge Kreutzmann wrote: > Hello, > On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 11:03:46AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > Well, my impression is that licences only apply at link time, not when mere > > distributing as examples. And since we don't distribute the linked version > > it > > is ok. Other may have some problem with that claiming the intention counts, > > as > > was the case with the emacs files. Now the example files are clearly usefull > > without those files, since their primary aim is to serve as example, not to > > be > > reused and linked by the user, so i would say there is no problem. > > I don't think you have a licencese to distribute <insert some random > propriotary software>, even if you do not intend to link to it. > > > > This seems to be necessary, I am afraid, because I am unable to > > > rebuild the HTML documentation or the man page (where, honestly > > > speaking, only one string is repleaced). But make clean happily > > > deletes the pre-build ones. > > > > Hehe. Why can't you rebuild them though ? That would be the cleanest > > solution. > > Please look at the beginning of this thread. Essentially, there is no > programm "htmlc" in Debian or in the tar ball, and all the > documentation I could read in the tar ball did not talk about where to
Oh, ok, i forgot abouyt that one. i will investigate ... What exactly is the format that it used in the original source code ? Mmm, will have a look myself. > get it. For the man page I don't remember the exact error, but the > only difference between the source and the final man page is one > substituted variable with the version. Essentially, we have two > options: > > a) Patch the source to remove the variable (I would do this, as the > man page was written for a certain version, but of course this > requires updating whenever a new upstream tar ball changes the > version). > > b) Run the source through sed or similar, i.e., automatically replace > the version with the version of advi we are building. This could be > achieved by a patched Makefile for the man page. Of course, this > might mislead readers into thinking that the man page always fully > applies to the latest version. That would be easy enough. > If you could check the intent of upstream, that would be great, so we > could follow upstreams idea then. Indeed, to bad i didn't think of it yesterday, as i talked with Pierre Weiss about advi, but i have been out of touch of anything eail and packaging related since then. > I also fixed the spelling of the doc-base entry; since the manual is > only shipped as pdf at the moment, and doc-base does not support this > (if I see that correctly), I did not add an entry to the changelog and > renamed the file (svn mv). Once we have HTML-docs again, the file can > be renamed back; after this fix is included, the bug can be closed > manually, though. Ok. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
