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 tmraz@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-08-30 05:34 EST ------- (In reply to comment #51) > I thought a bit more about the independent packages issue and I think > that > > * packages not in tetex should not be packaged in texlive. > detex devnag dvi2tty afm2pl dvipdfmx I do not agree. For packages which are not currently part of Fedora it would mean extra work to remove them from texlive and add them as separate packages. Of course when someone steps up and submits these packages as separate they can later be removed from texlive. I don't see any problem with that. > * packages that are in tetex should be put in their own subpackages > (with obsolete for the tetex package they were split off): > dvipdfm dvipng mendex You cannot obsolete a package containing N features with a package containing only a single feature from these N features. > * And the subpackages that correspond with independent packages should > not have texlive- prependended > dvipdfm dvipng mendex xdvik/pdvik That's really a matter of personal preference I think. > Then you can add requires in texlive or texlive-latex for the new > subpackages if you think that these subpackages are really needed. > > -- 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