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 jnovy@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-08-30 08:54 EST ------- (In reply to comment #49) > 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. Ok, I updated the desription. > > %description afm > texlive-afm provides afm2tfm, a converter for PostScript font metric > files. I let this one more verbose. > %description dvips > Dvips converts .dvi files to PostScript(TM) format. I reduced the description to: "Dvips converts .dvi files produced by the TeX text formatting system to PostScript(TM) format." and let the remaining paragraph intact since it describes useful instalation information. We can tidy it up again as soon as the subpackaging structure of texlive will be clear. > %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. I substituted the original description by yours. > %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. Updated. > %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 Fixed. > Why not use the external autoconf-2.13? Why we should? > 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. Removed. > 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. I'd let it as is IMO. > You should remove > --add-category Application Removed. > disdvi should certainly be in dviutils (if at all in texlive) > and I guess it is the same for dvipng. > Same probably applies for: %{_bindir}/dvicopy %{_bindir}/dvihp %{_bindir}/dvipdfm %{_bindir}/dvipdft %{_bindir}/dvipng %{_bindir}/dvitomp %{_bindir}/dvitype %{_bindir}/odvicopy %{_bindir}/odvitype %{_bindir}/dvipos I moved them to -dvi and added new %post scriptlet for dvipng.info installation. > maybe xelatex would better be in texlive-latex? Moved. > > files/directories installed in usr/share/texmf/texconfig > are not usefull (except for tcfmgr*), they are only > useful when using the dialog from texlive. Removed. > usr/share/texmf/web2c/*.pool are also in texlive-texmf. > > and mf.pool is in 2 packages. Fixed. > mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_texmf_var} > is redundant Fixed. > 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. This would need a bit more effort, but seems reasonable. > Maybe you could use my patch from Comment #28? Applied. > 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. I add -p to all install calls. > 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 To preserve timestamps? I wouldn't care for these. -- 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