On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 08:47:22 -0500 Ranjan Maitra wrote: > However, it appears that on BZ there is no entry to list it under. It isn't documented anywhere, but the redhat bugzilla categories all correspond to whatever source RPM originated the file in question. So, for example: tomh> rpm -q -i -f /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/IEEEtran Name : texlive-base Epoch : 4 Version : 2014 Release : 19.20140525_r34255.fc23 Architecture: noarch Install Date: Mon 22 Feb 2016 07:21:37 AM EST Group : Applications/Publishing Size : 7737537 License : Artistic 2.0 and GPLv2 and GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and LPPL and MIT and Public Domain and UCD and Utopia Signature : RSA/SHA256, Wed 17 Feb 2016 10:52:33 AM EST, Key ID 32474cf834ec9cba Source RPM : texlive-2014-19.20140525_r34255.fc23.src.rpm Build Date : Tue 16 Feb 2016 05:15:10 PM EST Build Host : arm01-builder10.arm.fedoraproject.org Relocations : (not relocatable) Packager : Fedora Project Vendor : Fedora Project URL : http://tug.org/texlive/ Summary : TeX Live filesystem, metadata and licenses shipped in text form Description : TeX Live licenses shipped in text form. Since the Source RPM is texlive, then the plain old texlive name is the one to use to report things. P.S. The only way to discover this is to report things in the wrong category and get chewed out because "everyone knows" that the categories correspond to the source RPMs :-). -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
