1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. LINUX.DEBIAN.BUGS.DIST

  • coq-doc package

    From Ralf Treinen@1:229/2 to Samuel Mimram on Mon Aug 16 10:10:05 2004
    XPost: linux.debian.maint.ocaml.maint
    From: [email protected]

    On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 12:14:46PM +0200, Samuel Mimram wrote:

    BTW it would be nice to have coq-doc updated too. I'm going to see with
    the maintainer (who does not seem to be in d-o-m) if some packages are planned.

    The maintainer of the coq-doc package is the Judica�l Courant, the
    former maintainer of the coq package (formerly sponsored by me).
    Unfortunately, Judica�l has gone AWOL. Samuel, please go ahead and
    take the coq-doc package over.

    However, I am not convinced that packaging postscript documentation
    (as it is done with the current version of the package) is really
    useful. You might consider packaging an html version instead.

    -Ralf.
    --


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
  • From Ralf Treinen@1:229/2 to Sven Luther on Mon Aug 16 10:20:06 2004
    XPost: linux.debian.maint.ocaml.maint
    From: [email protected]

    On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 10:14:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
    On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 10:00:34AM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote:
    On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 12:14:46PM +0200, Samuel Mimram wrote:

    BTW it would be nice to have coq-doc updated too. I'm going to see with the maintainer (who does not seem to be in d-o-m) if some packages are planned.

    The maintainer of the coq-doc package is the Judica�l Courant, the
    former maintainer of the coq package (formerly sponsored by me). Unfortunately, Judica�l has gone AWOL. Samuel, please go ahead and
    take the coq-doc package over.

    However, I am not convinced that packaging postscript documentation
    (as it is done with the current version of the package) is really
    useful. You might consider packaging an html version instead.

    I think it is usefull. But packaging html stuff too would be nice. We have until tomorrow only anyway, so i think cosmetic changes would have to wait for
    later.

    If you decide to keep the ps documentation then please consider
    splitting into two separate packages (like doc-ps and doc-html)

    -Ralf.
    --


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
  • From Sven Luther@1:229/2 to Ralf Treinen on Mon Aug 16 10:10:07 2004
    XPost: linux.debian.maint.ocaml.maint
    From: [email protected]

    On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 10:00:34AM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote:
    On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 12:14:46PM +0200, Samuel Mimram wrote:

    BTW it would be nice to have coq-doc updated too. I'm going to see with
    the maintainer (who does not seem to be in d-o-m) if some packages are planned.

    The maintainer of the coq-doc package is the Judica�l Courant, the
    former maintainer of the coq package (formerly sponsored by me). Unfortunately, Judica�l has gone AWOL. Samuel, please go ahead and
    take the coq-doc package over.

    However, I am not convinced that packaging postscript documentation
    (as it is done with the current version of the package) is really
    useful. You might consider packaging an html version instead.

    I think it is usefull. But packaging html stuff too would be nice. We have until tomorrow only anyway, so i think cosmetic changes would have to wait for later.

    Friendly,

    Sven Luther


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)