On 11.07.04 Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:04:51AM +0200, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
Hi $\forall$, > > Thomas has delivered out 2.0.2 with 1.2 and I'm not sure if it > > makes sense to put just in 1.3 and hope that every package > > declares a dep on 1.2 or later(!). > [...] > > Exactly. Thomas continues releasing beta releases for the > > upcoming teTeX 3.0 since beginning of February. At this time we > > thought it will take just a few month, but... For some reasons we > > won't upload to unstable but rather to experimental as soon as it > > is released. > > > > > I am therefore not sure Debian is shipping anything under the > > > new license yet. > > > > > No, we're releasing with 1.2. > > Hmmm. I don't suppose it's a *huge* deal, but do you think we > could ask upstream to apply the new LPPL to the existing codebase? > This doesn't require anything more than an email on their part, > which we could then stick in debian/copyright. > Well, our upstream is TE. Most of the code is not written by him, so he doesn't really have control over these things. Take e.g. KOMA-Script: the package is explicitely linked with LPPL 1.0. If you ask Markus Kohm, he'll refuse to upgrade to the next version (at least I read some postings about this by him in dctt). Well we could put 1.3 into teTeX 2.0.2 and hope, that most of the problems will be resolved then... Regards, H. -- I may be getting older, but I refuse to grow up! http://hilmarpreusse.forum-rheinland.de/
