Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Bernhard R. Link: > >> * Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [051025 13:51]: >>> * Steve Langasek: >>> >>> > Frank Lichtenheld has already posted an announcement[4] detailing the >>> > release team's plans for the question of non-DFSG documentation in main. >>> >>> Just to clarify, is technical documentation that is only available in >>> non-editable formats (e.g. Postscript files) >> >> Little nitpick and petition: Please write "generated Postscript files" >> in such examples, as postscript files can be perfectly editable and >> only the existance of easier languages causes the vast majority of >> postscript files being generated non-editable forms. (As is assembler >> files currently, or as C source code would be if almost everyone switched >> to some other language with a compiler generating C code as intermediate >> format.) > > On systems without digital restrictions managemet without mandatory > enforcement [1], it goes without saying that you can change bytes as > you like, but it is hardly the preferred way of implementing > modifications. > > Is it really controversial that these problems are bugs? I assumed > that only the RC status could be subject to debate.
It is for sure not a bug to contain a PostScript file where PostScript is the preferred form of modification. If you have tetex-base installed, /usr/share/texmf/dvips/misc/resolution400.ps is a short example, /usr/share/texmf/dvips/misc/crops.pro is a bit longer. There are people in this world who can read and program PostScript. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
