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 jnovy@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-09-18 11:23 EST ------- (In reply to comment #50) > Unfortunately, I don't know who the upstream contact spot (Tom Callaway) spoke > to was, I only know what spot posted to this bug and to the mailing lists. I think the whole conversation can be found in this thread: http://tug.org/mailman/htdig/tex-live/2007-August/014596.html and the upstream person is Karl Berry. > As for the tarballs, the current specfile has this to say: > # Source0 comes as a result from scripts that look for files in teTeX and > assigns appropriate > # TeXLive styles to it so that no style present in teTeX will be missing in > TeXLive. > # it contains expanded packages from > ftp://tug.org/texlive/Contents/inst/archive/ > # Scripts that are used for that are available at > http://people.redhat.com/jnovy/files/texlive/scripts/ > Source0: texlive.texmf-%{version}.tar.bz2 > # Source1 is http://www.tug.org/texlive/Contents/inst/archive/texmf-var.zip > Source1: texlive.texmf-var-%{version}.zip > so the canonical sources for the current tarball are the packages in archive/. > Since the Fedora tarball is recomposed anyway, I guess this means Jindrich Novy > can/should also take care of the updating, right? Yes, I will happily update the tarball as soon the legal things are clear. -- 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