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 jonathan.underwood@xxxxxxxxx 2008-02-17 18:09 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > 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 > OK, will fix. > 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. > Well, here I'd agree we should have something like x.20071115 as the version number, but I don't like the 17 - what happens when upstream get to 1.0 for example. This seems like a legitimate use of epoch to me. What do you think? > Why the texlive-texmf BuildRequires? > For the macro definitions eg. _texmf_main etc. > 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? > I think these should be in the dvipdfmx package, as they originate from that tarball - will wait for Jindrich to comment on this also. > In the texlive spec, there is, for the dvipdfmx subpackage: > # for cmap files > Requires: texlive-texmf-fonts = %{texlive_ver} > Yes, I can do that in this package also. > I think that it would be better to list explicitly the files > in %_bindir, to avoid surprises. > OK. > I suggest adding INSTALL='install -p' to make install. OK. Can't help wondering why this isn't a guideline. -- 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