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: texlive - Binaries for the TeX formatting system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=242416 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus@xxxxxxx 2007-08-29 18:26 EST ------- I think that the descriptions could be ameliorated. They are too detailed in my opinion, and at the same time they don't cover what is really in the package. Moreover some packages that are to be installed as dependencies don't need to have such a verbose description. I propose the following, mainly taken from the existing descriptions of course, these are just suggestions: %description TeX Live is an easy way to get up and running with TeX. It provides a comprehensive TeX system. The texlive package contains many binaries and scripts, including tex. Usually, TeX is used in conjunction with a higher level formatting package like LaTeX or PlainTeX, since TeX by itself is not very user-friendly. Install texlive if you want to use the TeX text formatting system. Consider to install texlive-latex (a higher level formatting package which provides an easier-to-use interface for TeX). The TeX documentation is located in the texlive-doc package. %description afm texlive-afm provides afm2tfm, a converter for PostScript font metric files. %description dvips Dvips converts .dvi files to PostScript(TM) format. %description fonts This package contains programs required to generate font files for the TeX system. The kpathsea related programs are also in this package, they are needed in order to find out a file in the TeX file tree. %description latex LaTeX is a front end for the TeX text formatting system. Easier to use than TeX. LaTeX is essentially a set of TeX macros which provide convenient, predefined document formats for users. It also allows to compile LaTeX files directly to PDF format. The TeX documentation is located in the texlive-doc package. %description xdvi Xdvi allows you to preview .dvi files on an X Window System. It seems to me that not removing t1lib is wrong, since reautoconf has already been done: # t1lib: use t1lib.ac and withenable.ac if reautoconf Why not use the external autoconf-2.13? Most the Requires should certainly be %{version}-%{release} That way, if there is a fix that needs to be in 2 dependent subpackages and if the user updates only one of the 2, the other will be dragged in. Obviously not true for the *-errata subpackages, but at least for all the subpackages from the same source package. There is an Obsoletes for tetex-tex4ht remaining. There are BuildRequires within subpackages. This is not wrong, but in my opinion it is easier to follow if all the BuildRequires are in the beginning. You should remove --add-category Application \ disdvi should certainly be in dviutils (if at all in texlive) and I guess it is the same for dvipng. maybe xelatex would better be in texlive-latex? files/directories installed in usr/share/texmf/texconfig are not usefull (except for tcfmgr*), they are only useful when using the dialog from texlive. usr/share/texmf/web2c/*.pool are also in texlive-texmf. and mf.pool is in 2 packages. mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_texmf_var} is redundant Maybe xetex and context related binaries (and similar in texmf) could be in separate packages, but it is not completely obvious either. What could be interesting, however, would be to group the utilities that are context related and those that are xetex related. Maybe you could use my patch from Comment #28? The timestamps are not kept during install. In general doing make INSTALL='install -p' is sufficient but in that case it may need some testing. Also in the explicit install call of noarch files, you could add -p, like in install -p -m 644 COPYRIGHT ChangeLog %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/texmf/doc/mendexk after the iconv you can use touch -r COPYRIGHT.jis %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/texmf/doc/mendexk/COPYRIGHT.jis I don't think keeping the timestamps that are not easily kept would be a blocker for the review. Maybe %dir %{_texmf_var} could be added too? I haven't checked texlive-texmf*, but I think that there should be something like %dir %{_sysconfdir}/texmf %dir %{_sysconfdir}/texmf/web2c and maybe, if you feel like going through %verify(not md5 size mtime) %config(missingok,noreplace) for the config files that also are in /usr/share/texmf It also seems to me that mktex.opt should be in %{_sysconfdir}/texmf/web2c %config(noreplace). Same for mktexdir.opt vfontmap.sample should certainly be in a doc directory. You could add a proper shebang to texmfstart, or add a Requires: ruby The split between texlive-fonts and texlive is not very obvious to me. For example kpsewhere is in texlive while most of the kpe* programs are in -fonts. Also programs like pfb2pfa tftopl mptopdf and omega related font programs are in texlive while other font related commands are in -fonts. More generally what is the criter to decide that something goes in the font package or the main package? Where should encoding related stuff go? I can implement and test some of my proposals above with a spec file diff if you give me the permission for some of the proposals. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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