Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696052 --- Comment #2 from Mohamed El Morabity <pikachu.2014@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-04-13 19:04:35 EDT --- Here are some comments: * A tacite rule for naming (La)TeX packages not part of the Fedora TeX Live packages (or RHEL teTeX) is that the package name should start by  tex- Â; your package should be named tex-cmsuper, with no reference to the (La)TeX distribution. * The Type 1 fonts are licensed under the GPL with font exception. This should be mentionned in the License tag. * In the Requires: Requires(post): texlive >= 2007 Requires(preun): texlive >= 2007 Requires(postun): texlive >= 2007 Is the condition  texlive >= 2007  really necessary? Fedora and RHEL 6 never included versions of TeX Live prior to 2007. By the way: Requires: texlive-dvips Requires: dvipdfm Are these packages really required to use these fonts in (La)TeX? * In the %install section, you create two scripts, tetex-addfonts-cmsuper and tetex-removefonts-cmsuper. Why? It doesn't make sense to provides them to the users of the package. * Please consider http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Installing_TeX_files_.28unvetted.29 for the %post/%postun actions relative to (La)TeX packages. For the updmap tweaks in these sections, you can refer to the tex-fonts-hebrew or the tex-cm-lgc packages (since there is no specific guidelines for updmap in %post/%postun). * Because of the fonts themselves, the package is quite huge. Why not splitting it into subpackages: - one for the TeX files; - some for the Type1 fonts? You can refer again to tex-cm-lgc for example for it, which uses this approach. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review