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: dvipdfmx - A DVI to PDF translator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433225 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus@xxxxxxx 2008-02-17 17:22 EST ------- rpmlint says: dvipdfmx.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 9) dvipdfmx.i386: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/dvipdfmx-20071115/NEWS It seems to me that version should be 0 and release should be 0.x.20071115. However, dvipdfmx in texlive is already at release 16, so it seems to me that it can be 17.x.20071115. Or even x.20071115 with x beginning at 17. Why the texlive-texmf BuildRequires? The files %{_texmf_main}/fonts/cmap/EUC-UCS2 %{_texmf_main}/fonts/cmap/UniKSCms-UCS2-H %{_texmf_main}/fonts/cmap/UniKSCms-UCS2-V are already owned by texlive-texmf-fonts, which package should own them? In the texlive spec, there is, for the dvipdfmx subpackage: # for cmap files Requires: texlive-texmf-fonts = %{texlive_ver} I think that it would be better to list explicitly the files in %_bindir, to avoid surprises. I suggest adding INSTALL='install -p' to make install. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review