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 mpeters@xxxxxxx 2006-04-27 11:06 EST ------- (In reply to comment #11) > Something like: > > %{!?_texmf: %define _texmf %(eval "echo > `kpsewhich -expand-var '$TEXMFMAIN'`")} Well, except that defining _texmf would in this case cause an error as well unless configure was patched to take it as an arguement (which I don't think is necessary) - I guess in this case expecting to support building against modified tetex environments might be a bit much because of the upstream configure script which looks for a specific file and doesn't take a texmf as a switch. > > That makes sense but then it would imply to Require: tetex-doc. That would > mean that a 40 KB package could potencially require an 100 MB package. I don't > think this is worth it. :-) /usr/bin/texdoc is owned by tetex. The potential problem is who owns the directories within the tex documentation tree if tetex-doc isn't installed - but other packages just own it themselves. Since it is just the man page, and available as a man page, it isn't that big of a deal. > > Actually I think that dvipost requires a tex installation, there is nothing > exclusive from tetex. That was the reason why I have proposed dvipost and not > tetex-dvipost. > > If you feel strongly about this I will rename it. On fedora - tetex is what provides tex. There are other examples of this (in core) [mpeters@atlantis Desktop]$ rpm -qf /usr/bin/dvips tetex-dvips-3.0-17 [mpeters@atlantis Desktop]$ rpm -qf /usr/bin/xdvi tetex-xdvi-3.0-17 It also makes it a little easier to find when browsing repoview for tetex boltons. -- 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