Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dvipost - latex post filter command https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190071 ------- Additional Comments From jamatos@xxxxxxxx 2006-04-27 10:37 EST ------- (In reply to comment #10) > Good: > > md5sum matches upstream : 2ec79283a8348312bc72831ca80ae3a2 dvipost.tar.gz > Builds in mock (fc5 x86) > rpmlint clean on all packages > spec file written in proper English > spec file easy to read and understand > cleanly installs and removes w/ no unowned directories > spec file name matches package name > consistent use of macros > Appropriate license (GPL), matches package COPYING file. > Package works. > > Suggestions (non blocking): > 1) The spec file explicitly specifies /usr/share/texmf in the %files. > That is the location in every fedora install - but some other spec files detect > the texmfmain directory in a macro and use that instead. > > If a user has for whatever reason changed their texmfmain - the src.rpm would > have a build error when rebuilt. Something like: %{!?_texmf: %define _texmf %(eval "echo `kpsewhich -expand-var '$TEXMFMAIN'`")} > 2) The html documentation might want to placed into texmf/doc somewhere so that > texdoc dvipost will launch a browser window to the documentation. That makes sense but then it would imply to Require: tetex-doc. That would mean that a 40 KB package could potencially require an 100 MB package. I don't think this is worth it. :-) > Question: > > From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines > ---- > If a new package is considered an "addon" package that enhances or adds a new > functionality to an existing Fedora Core or Fedora Extras package without being > useful on its own, its name should reflect this fact. > > The new package ("child") should prepend the "parent" package in its name, in > the format: %{parent}-%{child}. > ---- > > Since this package isn't useful without tetex, and is used in conjunction with > tetex, should it be called tetex-dvipost ? Actually I think that dvipost requires a tex installation, there is nothing exclusive from tetex. That was the reason why I have proposed dvipost and not tetex-dvipost. If you feel strongly about this I will rename it. > -=- > Misc suggestion for upstream - filter out the cgi-bin references in the man2html > conversion of the man page. I agree. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review