Do you want us to change *every* file (several thousands?) changing the
copyright statement there? No.
In the 21st century, equipped with such amazing tools as perl (etc), doing this
when building the ubuntu package should not mean a problem.
Would you please explain shortly, why it does.
--
** Changed in: texlive-extra (Ubuntu)
Status: Incomplete = Won't Fix
--
texlive depends on docs that take up more space than the software
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/401545
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
Hi Callum,
On So, 13 Jun 2010, Callum Macdonald wrote:
Norbert, you said this has been discussed on the Debian bug tracking
system and debian tex-maint mailing list. Is that correct?
Right.
I found a bug, but I'm struggling to find anything in the mailing list.
Here's what I believe to be a copy of LPPL version 1.3c to which you refer:
http://www.latex-project.org/lppl/lppl-1-3c.txt
Are you willing to explain on what basis you feel this license prohibits
distribution of a Compiled Work without the accompanying documentation
components?
Under clause 2,
On Mo, 14 Jun 2010, Callum Macdonald wrote:
Here's what I believe to be a copy of LPPL version 1.3c to which you refer:
http://www.latex-project.org/lppl/lppl-1-3c.txt
Yes.
Are you willing to explain on what basis you feel this license prohibits
distribution of a Compiled Work without the
= Personal experience =
I wanted to install lyx and was horrified to see the download would be 438MB
which would translate to 745MB of disk usage. After a little investigation, it
turns out more than 70% of the download and almost 60% of the disk space was
documentation. I looked through all
On Di, 23 Mär 2010, Shark Bay Technical Services wrote:
This bug is not invalid, as per the The Debian Policy Manual the
documentation files should be Suggests not recommends
have reset status to incomplete. please do not change to invalid without
discussion first.
This bug is *INVALID* as
This bug is not invalid, as per the The Debian Policy Manual the documentation
files should be Suggests not recommends
have reset status to incomplete. please do not change to invalid without
discussion first.
** Changed in: texlive-extra (Ubuntu)
Status: Invalid = Incomplete
--
Documentation is only recommended. If you want to save space, install
with aptitude -R.
** Changed in: texlive-extra (Ubuntu)
Status: New = Invalid
--
texlive depends on docs that take up more space than the software
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/401545
You received this bug
Yes but unfortunately the default is to automatically install recommends.
Documentation of this type should always be a suggests.
Otherwise it WILL ALL WAYS be installed unless a user removes it by hand.
Even an update can cause it to be installed.
Not very sensible.
Recommends should only be
--
texlive depends on docs that take up more space than the software
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/401545
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
The Debian Policy Manual, Chapter 7, defines a Recommends as a strong,
but not absolute, *dependency* (emphasis added.) These documentation
packages should be Suggests, defined as packages that can perhaps
enhance its usefulness, but that installing this one without them is
perfectly reasonable.
On Fr, 20 Nov 2009, Eric wrote:
The Debian Policy Manual, Chapter 7, defines a Recommends as a strong,
but not absolute, *dependency* (emphasis added.) These documentation
packages should be Suggests, defined as packages that can perhaps
enhance its usefulness, but that installing this one
13 matches
Mail list logo
