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 18:18 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6) > > > 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? I am not saying the same. I am saying 0 for the version, and x.20071115 for the release. > > Why the texlive-texmf BuildRequires? > > > > For the macro definitions eg. _texmf_main etc. I think it would be better to define them in case they are not defined, and this deserves a comment. > > 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. Indeed. > > 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. No, this is only needed if the files come from texlive-texmf-fonts. Though maybe dvipdfmx needs texlive-texmf-fonts for other reasons. -- 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