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-texmf - Architecture independent parts of the TeX formatting system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=229180 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus@xxxxxxx 2007-09-15 13:25 EST ------- I propose the following additions to the texmf substitutions: %{__sed} -i 's?^TEXMF =.*?TEXMF = {$TEXMFCONFIG,$TEXMFVAR,$TEXMFHOME,$TEXMFSYSCONFIG,!!$TEXMFSYSVAR,!!$TEXMFLOCAL,!!$TEXMFMAIN,!!$TEXMFDIST}?' %{__sed} -i 's?^TEXMFLOCAL =.*?TEXMFLOCAL = %{_texmf_local}?' Also context.cnf is quite different from texmf.cnf. Is it an issue? I think not, since it is additional to texmf.cnf. There is a -p missing for the first install. in the tkdefaults patch, the defaults should be like in texlive and the appropriate Requires set. Instead of doing a link for the cmap ghostscript resources I think that the texmf.cnf should be changed. Also I think that # move the configuration files and symlink them is wrong. Better leave as is. mktex.cnf should certainly be under the sole user control, and in /etc/texmf/web2c The common package may also be called texlive-common and it should certainly be in Requires for more packages, for example texlive, texlive-fonts, texlive-dvips, xdvi, mendexk, dvipdfmx. The install-info should not have .gz and have || :. The scriptlet commands should be in Requires(...). I hope that rpm can figure out that the binary package has in fact to be installed before the texmf package to be able to run the scriptlet. Also it seems to me that at least updmap should be run as a texmf package scriptlet, and not as the main package scriptlet, since all that updmap needs is in the texmf packages, including the config file. As usual I can do patch for these issues (except for the scriptlets, this needs more discussion). -- 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