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 2007-09-10 16:33 EST ------- I don't think that mv %{buildroot}%{_texmf_main}/web2c/*.opt %{buildroot}%{_texmf_conf}/web2c/ for file in `ls %{buildroot}%{_texmf_conf}/web2c/ | egrep 'opt$'`; do filename="`basename ${file}`" ln -sf %{_texmf_conf}/web2c/${filename} %{buildroot}%{_texmf_main}/web2c/ done is right. The place where you, as a packager, put config files should be separated from the place where local admins put their config, so I think that symlinking is wrong. Now regarding which files should be under the sole packager ruling (ie in %{_datadir}) and which one should be in %{_sysconfdir}, I think that it should depend on * is it something a user should want to change? if no, then it is for the packager * is there something that is likely to change with releases if yes it should better be for the packager. Based on this I think that the following should go below %{_sysconfig} (and the remaining remain in usr/share/texmf/): texmf/dvipdfm/cid-x.map texmf/web2c/mktexdir.opt They should be %config(noreplace) mktexnam.opt and mktex.opt (contrary to what I said above) should not be in {_sysconfig}, the user in general would better be if he left those under your control. Since you moved kpathsea related programs to main texlive, you should update the %descriptions texhash should certainly be with kpse* binaries. certainly a miss: W: texlive dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/ovf2ovp omfonts Maybe one of those isn't in the right package? W: texlive-fonts dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/mktexfmt fmtutil I guess that the following are right: W: texlive-latex dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/cslatex pdftex W: texlive-latex dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/platex ptex W: texlive-latex dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/pdfplatex-pl pdftex W: texlive-latex dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/platex-pl pdftex W: texlive-latex dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/latex pdftex W: texlive-latex dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/pdfcslatex pdftex W: texlive-latex dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/xelatex xetex W: texlive-latex dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/platex209 ptex W: texlive-latex dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/mllatex pdftex W: texlive-latex dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/man/man1/pdflatex.1.gz pdftex.1.gz W: texlive-latex dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/pdflatex pdftex Minor issue, there is still a wrong comment about t1lib In the dvips description: * dvips is not only for tex. it is a converter. So I propose for 1st sentetence: Dvips converts .dvi files to PostScript(TM) format. Or, if you want to mention TeX: Dvips converts .dvi files, for example those produced by the TeX text formatting system, to PostScript(TM) format. * I think that texlive-afm is not directly useful with dvips and the mention to texlive-afm should be dropped from dvips. vfontmap.sample should not be in %{_datadir}/texmf/pxdvi, but only in %doc. (or in the texmf doc directory). Regarding the license issues, the files should be removed from the tarball, like explained on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL I can do it if you want to. You didn't took Comment #50 into account, do you want a patch? And about splitting subpackages that have a distinct upstream, adding only what was in tetex and not using the texlive- prefix for the packages that should be split, what is your opinion? Just tell me if you like some parts, such that I make a patch. -- 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