Request for review: tetex-prosper (update to latest version)
José Pedro Oliveira
jpo at di.uminho.pt
Fri Jun 3 20:26:25 UTC 2005
Hi Ed,
> Hi Jose,
>
> While you weren't actually helpful enough to provide any URLs [:-|],
I had already given the following CTAN link
http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/help/Catalogue/entries/prosper.html
in a previous post. See
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-June/msg00036.html.
And if Michael couldn't locate a CTAN mirror, I wouldn't mind pointing
him in the right direction.
> you're right that there appears to be a "newer" version of prosper
> available at:
>
> http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/macros/latex/contrib/prosper/
This link (or a similar one to another CTAN mirror) can be followed
from the CTAN link I posted.
> So why do I put the "newer" in quotes? Well, the official prosper web
> site (http://prosper.sourceforge.net/) makes absolutely no mention of
> the sources at CTAN. It explicitly points folks towards the SF.net
> downloads which Michael used.
>
> Digging into the email lists on the prosper SF.net site and the prosper
> wiki:
See the following email (from the sourceforge mailing list):
Title: Re: where is the latest release?
Date: 2004-08-31
Link: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=9397433
Note: you will mostly likely find other emails. I do remember seeing
similar mails two/three years ago when I used prosper.
> http://wikiprosper.bbclone.de/index.php?pagename=ProsperFaq
Nice link.
> it becomes apparent that prosper is actively used (multiple posts every
> month to the user list) even if it isn't actively developed. Further,
I haven't said that prosper is dead. I used it in the past and I still
have several prosper presentations in my CVS repo.
> in-the-know prosper users appear to use (FAQ #6) the latest version from
> CVS (1.25) or the slightly *OLDER* snapshot that you mention on CTAN
> (appears to be CVS 1.24).
Never used Ha-prosper. When I discovered it I had already switched to
Beamer (too many headaches due to vertical alignment).
It would be nice to also package it.
> And what bearing does all this have on the license? Well, the latest
> version in CVS is LPPL v1.2 and the 1.00.4 release is the older MIT-like
> license from the original author.
>
> So, Michael has a few choices. He can package the 1.00.4 release as he
> has already done and keep it as-is license-wise. Or, he can package
> some newer CVS snapshot in which case he'll have to change the license
> tag just as the project itself changed its license. Or he can do the
> former and, at some point, upgrade.
>
> I think the latest from CVS is probably the best but its Michael's
> choice since he is the packager, not us.
I wouldn't advise to package the CVS version. Mostly likely it would
be better to package the CTAN version and add patches to it (if really
needed).
> ps - And yes, the unowned directories do need to be fixed. Good catch.
That is a blocker.
Best regards,
jpo
--
José Pedro Oliveira
* mailto: jpo at di.uminho.pt * http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/~jpo *
* gpg fingerprint = F9B6 8D87 859D 1C94 48F0 84C0 9749 9EB5 91BD 851B *
http://conferences.yapceurope.org/2005/ * http://braga.yapceurope.org/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 251 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20050603/3ccef956/attachment.sig>
More information about the fedora-extras-list
mailing list