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 jamatos@xxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From jamatos@xxxxxxxx 2006-05-06 02:41 EST ------- (In reply to comment #15) > Some comments: > > * %post -p /usr/bin/texhash > > will automatically add > Requires(post) /usr/bin/texhash Right. > So I think the explicit dependency on tetex-fonts is not really right > as it may change in the future. OK. > * A dependence on kpsewhich should be there, however, in my opinion: > BuildRequires: /usr/bin/kpsewhich Done. > * In my opinion the following should be used to detect %_texmf, since > in configure kpsewhich is also used (even though a bit differently > but I believe the result is the same) > %{!?_texmf: %define _texmf %(eval "echo `kpsewhich -expand-var '$TEXMFMAIN'`")} I agree, we should probably harmonize this in rules for tetex derived packages. Reading other tetex-* packages both ways are used. > * the tetex package is picked up by tetex-latex, so I think that > the dependencies on tetex should be removed. I knew that. :-) I removed it. The changes have been commited to CVS but I don't think the changes require a new build. The package build cleanly for all branches so I will close this bug. The package build cleanly, so -- 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