* Barak A. Pearlmutter <ba...@cs.nuim.ie>, 2009-12-01, 02:14:
I have consulted with upstream, and apparently the original LaTeX used to produce this document has been lost. Ideally, someone will manually recreate some LaTeX sources. But given the circumstances, I do not believe that this is a show stopper: as of today, the DjVu file is the preferred existing form of the information for making changes, as it is the *only* existing form of the information. Naturally I would be the first to acknowledge that such modification would be a rather awkward process.
Indeed, as awkward as hand editing an ELF binary in hex editor. And we won't accept such a binary without source in Debian, will we?
Besides, I suspect that there may be more reasons these documents should be considered non-DFSG-free. Especially this upstream statement worries me:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=1972089&group_id=32953&atid=406583#artifact_comment_2787032 "Alas I do not control the specification document."
Unless there are objections, this seems like a good reason to lower the severity of this report to wishlist, and to being the search for a sucker, I mean person, who will agree to undertake the reLaTeXing.
Please count me as an objector.Don't get me wrong, I do consider these specifications very useful and handy to have them somewhere in /usr/share/doc/. However, in the current state of affairs, they don't meet DFSG and thus should be stripped out of the source package.
-- Jakub Wilk
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
