Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 00:58:55 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org> To: delphij@delphij.net, delphij@gmail.com Cc: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Code policy on doc/ tree? Message-ID: <20060206.005855.59646159.hrs@allbsd.org> In-Reply-To: <a78074950601280909o489a0f7bn35ca3368052b6111@mail.gmail.com> References: <a78074950601280909o489a0f7bn35ca3368052b6111@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
----Security_Multipart(Mon_Feb__6_00_58_55_2006_909)-- Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Xin LI <delphij@gmail.com> wrote in <a78074950601280909o489a0f7bn35ca3368052b6111@mail.gmail.com>: de> In order to be able to generate usable PDF and RTF files for the de> FreeBSD Simplified Chinese Project, we have added several building de> hooks into our local tree, which is available at: de> de> http://cvsweb.freebsd.org.cn/doc/zh_CN.GB2312/share/mk/Attic/?only_with_tag=CNPROJ de> de> Is code allowed here? Should we make it as a port? Hmm, I think making a port is better for now because it depends on Jade and JadeTeX. Also, I have some comments: - cjktexsty.lex: I think this has duplicated functionality of ucharacters.sty in JadeTeX, and almost all of them can be done in TeX level, too. What is wrong to make this as Chinese version of JadeTeX? I am interested in if there are any specific reasons to make it as an additional binary. - fixrtf.lex I think it is good to make this as a port and jade depend on it. -- | Hiroki SATO ----Security_Multipart(Mon_Feb__6_00_58_55_2006_909)-- Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBD5iC/TyzT2CeTzy0RArHDAKCVqrsDaIYU0Cse7baUzhvEeVtVcACgjnhv 4GJjGxeJGOKGHlNSA1s8YJU= =IJyz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----Security_Multipart(Mon_Feb__6_00_58_55_2006_909)----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060206.005855.59646159.hrs>