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 2007-08-30 06:44 EST ------- (In reply to comment #52) > (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. What extra work? Some of those files have --without, others can simply be removed, and I volunteered to do and test patches. If this is not done now, there will be some extra work when separate packages are submitted with obsoletes and complications. > > * 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. That's not the idea. The idea is when foo is split in fooA and fooB, both fooA and fooB obsolete foo, such that on update fooA and fooB get installed. This is what is done, for example in mesa-libGLw: # libGLw used to be in Mesa package in RHL 6.x, 7.[0-2], RHEL 2.1 Obsoletes: Mesa # libGLw moved to XFree86-libs for RHL 7.3, 8, 9, FC1, RHEL 3 Obsoletes: XFree86-libs # libGLw moved to xorg-x11-libs FC[2-4], RHEL4 Obsoletes: xorg-x11-libs > > * 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. Not only it is also a matter of changing more than needed package names and having to add Obsoletes/Provides or not. -- 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