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 2006-05-06 02:58 EST ------- (In reply to comment #18) > > > * 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. In this case - using %{!?_texmf: %define blah} should probably not be used since configure doesn't take an arguement for what texmf to use. So if I did rpmbuild --define '_texmf /mnt/nfs/my_texmf' --rebuild foo.src.rpm the package might fail because kpsewhich in configure would pick up TEXMFMAIN instead of what the macro defines. Once upstream adds a configure switch to optionally specify the texmf, then allowing a custom texmf in the spec file via setting a macro makes sense. Upstream should probably be bugged about that. If I was building it from source, I would want it in TEXMFLOCAL (or in my home dir texmf) - so it should be a configure switch (and probably should default to TEXMFLOCAL if no arguement is given to configure) -- 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