On 12/22/06, Norbert Preining wrote:
Hi all!
You know what is coming ...
First statement: I would prefer to have context in Debian proper, but if
we cannot get anyway with this, putting all the stuff into the nonfree
section might be an option, although it doesn't sound right.
Ok, I made
Hi Norbert,
I had to go through this for TeXLive proper as well. Can't you
just ask Karl Berry cq. do what TexLive does (since it claims
to be Debian-compatible)?
Anyway, here is my list of remarks. I apologise beforehand if I
sound a bit unfriendly here or there, I do not completely agree
with
Hi Taco!
On Fre, 22 Dez 2006, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
I had to go through this for TeXLive proper as well. Can't you
Oh, sorry I missed this. Was it on the tex-live list? If yes, then all
this is my fault, if no, hmm, still sorry.
Anyway, here is my list of remarks. I apologise beforehand if I
Taco Hoekwater wrote:
No, they were not, and there is no missing source. The vf/tfm/map
were generated using the texfont program, which does not use source
files. The afms were created using ttf2afm, which uses ttfs as source.
concerning vf tfm and map files: in most cases they are kind of
Norbert Preining wrote:
if I, too, don't agree about the documentation stuff. In fact I
agree half-way: I want to have the source code, even if some commercial
fonts are missing etc and would still consider this DFSG free. In fact I
started a discussion about it some time ago, since I
Mojca Miklavec wrote:
ConTeXt doesn't use/need fontinst. I assume that all the files were
created only once by running texfont script once per each
font/encoding, most probably manually (although one could easily
once per encoding
texfont --encoding=texnansi --batch type-tmf.dat
etc
Hi Norbert,
Norbert Preining wrote:
Sure, but only if you can promise this *will be* the end of it.
Otherwise, it only adds even more of a hassle (it seems whatever
we do, it is never quite enough).
To be honest: This is the way MOST projects go. And with a statement
like this Debian
