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: dvipost - latex post filter command
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190071
------- Additional Comments From jamatos@fc.up.pt 2006-04-27 10:37 EST ------- (In reply to comment #10)
Good:
md5sum matches upstream : 2ec79283a8348312bc72831ca80ae3a2 dvipost.tar.gz Builds in mock (fc5 x86) rpmlint clean on all packages spec file written in proper English spec file easy to read and understand cleanly installs and removes w/ no unowned directories spec file name matches package name consistent use of macros Appropriate license (GPL), matches package COPYING file. Package works.
Suggestions (non blocking):
- The spec file explicitly specifies /usr/share/texmf in the %files.
That is the location in every fedora install - but some other spec files
detect
the texmfmain directory in a macro and use that instead.
If a user has for whatever reason changed their texmfmain - the src.rpm
would
have a build error when rebuilt.
Something like:
%{!?_texmf: %define _texmf %(eval "echo `kpsewhich -expand-var '$TEXMFMAIN'`")}
- The html documentation might want to placed into texmf/doc somewhere so
that
texdoc dvipost will launch a browser window to the documentation.
That makes sense but then it would imply to Require: tetex-doc. That would mean that a 40 KB package could potencially require an 100 MB package. I don't think this is worth it. :-)
Question:
From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines
If a new package is considered an "addon" package that enhances or adds a
new
functionality to an existing Fedora Core or Fedora Extras package without
being
useful on its own, its name should reflect this fact.
The new package ("child") should prepend the "parent" package in its name,
in
the format: %{parent}-%{child}.
Since this package isn't useful without tetex, and is used in conjunction
with
tetex, should it be called tetex-dvipost ?
Actually I think that dvipost requires a tex installation, there is nothing exclusive from tetex. That was the reason why I have proposed dvipost and not tetex-dvipost.
If you feel strongly about this I will rename it.
-=- Misc suggestion for upstream - filter out the cgi-bin references in the
man2html
conversion of the man page.
I agree.