On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 03:36:13PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 07:30:46PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > > And given that tex distributions even very stable and solid ones like > tetex can decide to disappear into thin air from one day to another, I > wouldn't bind ourselves to versioning and naming of intermediate > upstreams. E.g. I wouldn't even use texlive/tetex prefixes to > subpackages and dependencies. After all a package requiring some > version of LaTeX or dvips doesn't require that it comes from tetex, > TeXlive etc., so the dependency should be kept subvendor-free. There is a plan to have virtual provides for tex/latex, discussion is at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=410401 > (The current packages go into the right direction wrt above, e.g.: > texlive-2007-7 > texlive-afm-2007-7 > texlive-dvips-2007-7 > texlive-dviutils-2007-7 > texlive-latex-2007-7 > kpathsea-2007-7 > kpathsea-devel-2007-7 > xdvi-22.84.12-7 > dvipng-1.9-7 > mendexk-2.6e-7 > dvipdfm-0.13.2d-7 > dvipdfmx-0-7 > Ideally latex, dvips etc will also land into their "own" subpackage) I don't think so. The package name should be what upstream is. It's up to the virtual provides to provide vendor independance. -- Pat -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
