Your message dated Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:38:26 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
has caused the report #470209,
regarding a DBLATEX_ROOT, please?
to be marked as having been forwarded to the upstream software
author(s)
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
immediately.)
--
470209: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=470209
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Benoît,
what's your opinion about the new wishlist bug report #470209 [1]?
After thinking about it for a while, I don't want to deviate from
upstream dblatex for it (although the Debian dblatex wrapper already
differs from the upstream one).
In addition to the wrapper script the package's documentation would have
to be adapted too, and these would be too many deviations. Thus the
suggestion should either be implemented in native dblatex or not at all.
What do you think?
My personal point of view regarding this can be summarized as: If a user
starts to adapt package files according to his needs (which I think is a
fine thing and one of the main advantages of open source software), why
not the wrapper script as well? But Ivan's opinion obviously differs
here, and I don't want to ignore his request.
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/470209
Regards, Andreas
--
Andreas Hoenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPG: 1024D/B888D2CE
A4A6 E8B5 593A E89B 496B
82F0 728D 8B7E B888 D2CE
pgp4dot7fua4a.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
