Request for review: tetex-prosper (update to latest version)

[José Pedro Oliveira]

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>