Re: listings.sty removed ?
El sábado, 15 febr, 2003, a las 10:14 Europe/Madrid, Robin Fairbairns escribió: sigh. i expect thomas has been being got at by the debian licensing fanatics. i presume there's no multicol.sty either, since that has similar terms. Fundamentalism is a Bad Thing. About politics, religion, licensing or anything. And the fact is that teTeX 2.0 have lost usefulness because of such fundamentalism. And... did anyone contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]? we (ctan people) did, long ago, and the upshot is the licence statement you quote. listings isn't going to go to the nonfree tree on ctan, if i have anything to do with the matter. I am glad to hear that. Cheers, JMA -- * Jose M. Alcaide // [EMAIL PROTECTED] // [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Go ahead... make my day -- Harry Callahan *
Re: listings.sty removed ?
On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 01:05:51PM +0100, Jose M. Alcaide wrote: sigh. i expect thomas has been being got at by the debian licensing fanatics. i presume there's no multicol.sty either, since that has similar terms. Fundamentalism is a Bad Thing. About politics, religion, licensing or anything. And the fact is that teTeX 2.0 have lost usefulness because of such fundamentalism. People made fun of Richard Stallman for 10 years because he insisted on putting free software into a proper legal framework. But I think many people now believe he was right to make a stance, and not make compromises. I think the extra license statements in multicol and listings are just plain silly, and don't know why the authors wasted their time on them. -- Sebastian Rahtz OUCS Information Manager 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
Re: dvipdft is missing?
We, tetex maintainers of Debian, got the bug which said that teTeX 2.0 included dvipdfm but a wrapper script dvipdft was missing (in the teTeX 2.0 source tree). When I added dvipdfm to teTeX, I have looked at the dvipdft and found that it writes to /tmp in an insecure way. Then, just before making the teTeX-2.0 release, I have forgotten that item... Apparently, dvipdft was referenced in a manual page of dvipdfm. Is there any chance that dvipdft will be included in teTeX? Yes, but not the original script. It needs to be fixed for security. Thomas
Re: listings.sty removed ?
Thomas Esser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Fundamentalism is a Bad Thing. About politics, religion, licensing or anything. And the fact is that teTeX 2.0 have lost usefulness because of such fundamentalism. I will check if the license of the listings package is ok for free software and put the package back if this turn out to be true. Sounds like it to me. I don't agree with your opinion on licensing. Being free software is a great plus for teTeX. All those nonfree packages are still available to TeX users, they are just not part of teTeX. On the other hand, teTeX is now free and can be included as part of a book-cdrom, linux distributions, other free software packages etc. As to the fundamentalism: much free software (TeX being a notable exception) nowadays consists of reimplementations of proprietary software. If you take fundamentalism aside, there is no reason to start developing a replacement for proprietary software if your investment of time and money to get free software of equal utility and quality will be more than a license for the proprietary software would have cost you. The fundamentalism of Stallman and others is responsible for software now being available which is the better choice even for non-fundamentalists. You consider yourself morally superior because you don't let your choices be reined in by fundamentalism. But without the fundamentalists paving the way beside the established paths, you would not even have a choice. To Robin: no I don't think that multicol.sty is nonfree. I remember that there was a lengthy discussion about that with the outcome of the current license. Is there any reason to recheck the license of multicol.sty? Well, the licence has been changed to address the previous objections, and so it was appropriately reassessed. Shall we really restart it all? Since Carsten Heinze did the same IIRC (rewording all things that previously were requirements into wishes), it would be fair to give listings.sty the same reassessment under those changed conditions that multicol.sty received. From taking a look at the wording in TeXlive7, I fail to see a problem. The additional terms are %% However, if you distribute the package as part of a commercial %% product or if you use the package to prepare a commercial document %% (books, journals, and so on), I'd like to encourage you to make a %% donation to the LaTeX3 fund. The size of this `license fee' should %% depend on the value of the package for your product. For more %% information about LaTeX see http://www.latex-project.org %% %% No matter whether you use the package for a commercial or %% non-commercial document, please send me a copy of the document (.dvi, %% .ps, .pdf, hardcopy, etc.) to support further development---it is %% easier to introduce new features or simplify things if I see how the %% package is used by other people. I'd like to encourage you is not a license requirement. [...] please send me can hardly be seen as a requirement in that context. I just checked the current source on CTAN which also contains % Modification advice. % Permission is granted to modify the listings package as well as % lstdrvrs.dtx. You are not allowed to distribute a modified version % of the package or lstdrvrs.dtx unless you change the file names and % provide the original files. In any case it is better to contact the % address below; other users will welcome removed bugs, new features, % and additional programming languages. This is labelled as advice, and indeed, it contains nothing that would not already be demanded by the LPPL. In short, I do not see how the package places additional restrictions beyond the LPPL. It asks for a few things in words that are clearly not intended to form an actual _requirement_, and it goes to some length to again stress a few points about the LPPL. If I am mistaken in my assessment, I'll be glad to here just where. But in my opinion I really am unable to see right now where the problem is. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Re: listings.sty removed ?
On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 04:05:36PM +0100, Jose M. Alcaide wrote: I think the extra license statements in multicol and listings are just plain silly, and don't know why the authors wasted their time on them. Well, asking for a voluntary donation for the LaTeX3 project is not a bad idea, in my opinion. Putting in an advert for LaTeX3, saying it needs donations, is not at all a bad thing, no. Dressing it up as a confusing moral license is not, IMHO. -- Sebastian Rahtz OUCS Information Manager 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
Re: `@' sign in path not treated properly
I've tried to compile current TeTex on Tru64Unix 5.1A with latest version of compilers from Compaq/HP, and I got the error below. Please, cc me in any replies. The fix suggested by Albert Chin looks ok. Olaf Weber (web2c + kpathsea maintainer) has decided to use % as separator instead as a short-term solution and to get rid of that code in the long term. Please note, that configure forced usage CFLAGS -Olimit 1000 -std1 . -std1 makes cc into more strict mode, although it is sometimes better than standard -std. I'm not sure about limiting the optimization by default. I don't think it's a good idea and I as a user did not ask for it either. That optimization limit was added to work around some compiler bugs which produced incorrect code with higher optimization. That -std1 was needed, too at some point. sign. Maybe this is the same problem, I don't know, maybe it's enough to recreate configure with never auto* tools. No, since automake is not used and the code in question is used in some Makefile.in. Thanks for your report. Thomas
solaris 9 compile faliure
'SunOS 5.9 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Blade-100' with the following: GCC 3.2, GNU Make 3.80, GNU Bison 1.75, GNU flex 2.5.4 Configure yields one item of interest, though probably not related: # ./configure --prefix=/usr/local/teTeX configure.log configure: WARNING: sys/ptem.h: present but cannot be compiled configure: WARNING: sys/ptem.h: check for missing prerequisite headers? configure: WARNING: sys/ptem.h: proceeding with the preprocessor's result configure: WARNING: ## ## configure: WARNING: ## Report this to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## configure: WARNING: ## ## with no other obvious errors/problems in the configure.log Make dies as such: #make ... ... make[3]: Entering directory `/homes/cbrown/tetex-src-2.0/texk/web2c/web2c' gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../.. -I../.. -I.. -I./.. -g -O2 -c splitup.c ../../klibtool link gcc -o splitup splitup.o ../lib/lib.a ../../kpathsea/libkpathsea.la -lm gcc -o splitup splitup.o ../lib/lib.a ../../kpathsea/STATIC/libkpathsea.a -lm make[3]: Leaving directory `/homes/cbrown/tetex-src-2.0/texk/web2c/web2c' cd web2c make -w CC='gcc' CFLAGS='-g -O2 ' LDFLAGS='' web2c make[3]: Entering directory `/homes/cbrown/tetex-src-2.0/texk/web2c/web2c' Expect one shift/reduce conflict. bison -y -d -v ./web2c.y conflicts: 1 shift/reduce test -f y.tab.c mv -f y.tab.c y_tab.c make[3]: [y_tab.h] Error 1 (ignored) test -f y.tab.h mv -f y.tab.h y_tab.h make[3]: [y_tab.h] Error 1 (ignored) gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../.. -I../.. -I.. -I./.. -g -O2 -c main.c main.c:18:19: y_tab.h: No such file or directory main.c: In function `yyerror': main.c:164: `undef_id_tok' undeclared (first use in this function) main.c:164: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once main.c:164: for each function it appears in.) main.c:167: `var_id_tok' undeclared (first use in this function) main.c:170: `const_id_tok' undeclared (first use in this function) main.c:173: `type_id_tok' undeclared (first use in this function) main.c:176: `proc_id_tok' undeclared (first use in this function) main.c:179: `proc_param_tok' undeclared (first use in this function) main.c:182: `fun_id_tok' undeclared (first use in this function) main.c:185: `fun_param_tok' undeclared (first use in this function) make[3]: *** [main.o] Error 1 make[3]: Leaving directory `/homes/cbrown/tetex-src-2.0/texk/web2c/web2c' make[2]: *** [web2c/web2c] Error 2 make[2]: Leaving directory `/homes/cbrown/tetex-src-2.0/texk/web2c' make[1]: *** [all] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/homes/cbrown/tetex-src-2.0/texk' make: *** [all] Error 1
Re: solaris 9 compile faliure
configure: WARNING: sys/ptem.h: present but cannot be compiled configure: WARNING: sys/ptem.h: check for missing prerequisite headers? configure: WARNING: sys/ptem.h: proceeding with the preprocessor's result configure: WARNING: ## ## configure: WARNING: ## Report this to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## configure: WARNING: ## ## That will be fixed in the next version. bison -y -d -v ./web2c.y conflicts: 1 shift/reduce test -f y.tab.c mv -f y.tab.c y_tab.c make[3]: [y_tab.h] Error 1 (ignored) test -f y.tab.h mv -f y.tab.h y_tab.h make[3]: [y_tab.h] Error 1 (ignored) gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../.. -I../.. -I.. -I./.. -g -O2 -c main.c main.c:18:19: y_tab.h: No such file or directory Strange. bison should habe created the files y.tab.h y.tab.c y.output and the mv commands mv -f y.tab.c y_tab.c mv -f y.tab.h y_tab.h should have renamed them. It works for me (and I just have installed bison 1.75 to verify this). Thomas
texinfo configure bug
Thomas: I found a bug in the texinfo configure script, causing the test for for library with termcap variables always to fail. Here's a patch. --Paul Vojta cut here --- utils/texinfo/configure.ac.orig 2003-01-31 08:48:57.0 -0800 +++ utils/texinfo/configure.ac 2003-02-14 23:38:57.0 -0800 @@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ LIBS=$oldLIBS -l$termlib fi AC_TRY_LINK(, -#ifdef HAVE_NCURSES_TERMCAP_H +[#ifdef HAVE_NCURSES_TERMCAP_H #include ncurses/termcap.h #else #ifdef HAVE_TERMCAP_H @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ UP++ PC++; return ospeed != 0; -, ac_cv_var_ospeed=$trylib; break) +], ac_cv_var_ospeed=$trylib; break) done LIBS=$oldLIBS ) --- utils/texinfo/configure.orig2003-01-31 08:49:25.0 -0800 +++ utils/texinfo/configure 2003-02-14 23:39:54.0 -0800 @@ -6405,7 +6405,12 @@ #endif #endif /* Make sure all variables actually exist. AIX 4.3 has ospeed but no BC. - --Andreas Ley [EMAIL PROTECTED] + --Andreas Ley [EMAIL PROTECTED], 24 Aug 2000. */ +BC++; +UP++ +PC++; +return ospeed != 0; + ; return 0; } @@ -6422,17 +6427,11 @@ ac_status=$? echo $as_me:$LINENO: \$? = $ac_status 5 (exit $ac_status); }; }; then - 24 Aug 2000. */ -BC++; -UP++ -PC++; -return ospeed != 0; - + ac_cv_var_ospeed=$trylib; break else echo $as_me: failed program was: 5 sed 's/^/| /' conftest.$ac_ext 5 -ac_cv_var_ospeed=$trylib; break fi rm -f conftest.$ac_objext conftest$ac_exeext conftest.$ac_ext done
Re: texinfo configure bug
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 01:37:09 +0100 From: Thomas Esser [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: texinfo configure bug To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I found a bug in the texinfo configure script, causing the test for for library with termcap variables always to fail. Here's a patch. I don't get it. How can this work without ; after UP++ ? I guess I missed that one. --Paul
