On 25/09/2007, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 17:49 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote: > > On 24 Sep 2007 10:24:29 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>>>> "TK" == Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > TK> +1 to making the prefix tex- > > > > > > +1 here as well. > > > > And me. > > > > Can we also consider adding some virtual provides for making add-on > > packages TeX distribution agnostic. > > Such as? > > I don't know TeX from a hole in the ground. If you know better, please > draft guidelines for it. As long as they don't seem to have come from a > haze of bong smoke, we'll probably sign off on them. Deferring to those > who know what they're talking about is our secret to success. :) Well, some early proposals are here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/TeXNaming Basically, have texlive-bin Provides: TeX such that add-ons can Require: TeX. That way, if someone needs to install a different (La)TeX distribution than TeXLive (others do exist), she can still use the add-on packages (where it makes sense to do so. Depending on how texlive eventualy ends up being packaged, it may be that we want to add more fine grained virtual provides, eg tex, latex, tex-dvips, tex-pdflatex etc etc. This really needs to be done in consideration of the packaging strategy of texlive though. Input from Jindrich would be useful. > > ~spot > > -- > Fedora-packaging mailing list > Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging > -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
