On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 06:56 -0400, Neal Becker wrote: > Jindrich Novy wrote: > > > On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 13:16 -0400, Neal Becker wrote: > >> Seems a bit odd: > >> tetex-doc x86_64 > > > > Yup, this is odd. > > > > The TeXLive 2007 packages which are now under review: > > > > http://bugzilla.redhat.com/229180 > > http://bugzilla.redhat.com/242416 > > > > and splits the TeXLive into two parts just for this reason (the largest > > part -> texmf tree, docs) is noarch and only the binary part, which is > > arch specific, is packaged separately thanks to the better design of > > TeXLive. > > > > The packages are now in a ready-to-use(tm) state and needs review, > > please help with it so that we can get rid of TeTeX soon. > > > > Thanks, > > Jindrich > > > > OK, I'll try out the texlive packages. Does this obsolete tetex? Coexist? > IOW, how should I install this on a current FC7 system that already has > tetex? The new texlive packages should contain all needed provides for the old tetex ones, so that it could be no problem to replace your current tetex installation by the texlive packages just now. Only a few packages actually require tetex, the most of them only BuildRequire it to generate documentation. They definitely cannot coexist, because they ship the same stuff. I also can't guarantee 100% tetex compatibity in the current state. -- Jindrich Novy <jnovy@xxxxxxxxxx> http://people.redhat.com/jnovy/ -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
