Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190071
Summary: Review Request: dvipost - latex post filter command Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: bugzilla-sink@leemhuis.info ReportedBy: jamatos@fc.up.pt QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/fedora-extras/dvipost.spec SRPM URL: http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/fedora-extras/dvipost-1.1-1.src.rpm
Description: dvipost - a latex post filter command to support change bars and overstrike mode.
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 07:15 EST ------- I was not completly satisfied with the resulting package so I have a new versio available:
* Thu Apr 27 2006 José Matos jamatos@fc.up.pt - 1.1-2 - Add new entries to %%doc and expand description
Spec URL: http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/fedora-extras/dvipost.spec SRPM URL: http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/fedora-extras/dvipost-1.1-2.src.rpm
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
mpeters@mac.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@leemhuis.info |mpeters@mac.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From mpeters@mac.com 2006-04-27 07:52 EST ------- I'll review this package
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
pertusus@free.fr changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pertusus@free.fr
------- Additional Comments From pertusus@free.fr 2006-04-27 07:55 EST ------- Here is a patch to make rpmlint happy.
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 pertusus@free.fr 2006-04-27 07:56 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=128299) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=128299&action=vie...) cleanings for rpmlint
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 mpeters@mac.com 2006-04-27 08:05 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4)
Created an attachment (id=128299)
--> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=128299&action=vie...) [edit]
cleanings for rpmlint
-Requires(post): /usr/bin/texhash -Requires(pre): /usr/bin/texhash
What is the purpose of that? I know texhash is supplied by tetex-fonts which is required by tetex, and that any tetex install is going to have to have texhash, but I personally think it is a good idea to explicitly require what is run the post/postun scripts.
Other changes in the patch are good.
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 mpeters@mac.com 2006-04-27 08:14 EST ------- mock build error:
RPM build errors: File not found by glob: /var/tmp/dvipost-1.1-2.fc5-root-mockbuild/usr/share/ texmf/tex/latex/misc/*
It seems that in mock, it can't identify the TEXMF and installs it into dvipost-1.1-2.fc5-root-mockbuild./
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 08:21 EST ------- The purpose of texhash is to create an hash with .sty files paths archived.
That is why we need to run it after installing and after removing it.
In general I agree with you, but in this case the relation between tetex and tetex-fonts is such that I don't expect ever to able to run tetex without tetex-fonts (famous last words ;-).
In reply to #4, Patrice I have incorporated your patch in release 3.
In reply to #6 /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/misc/ belongs to tetex-latex, so better requiring it for building and install.
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 mpeters@mac.com 2006-04-27 08:27 EST -------
From the makefile inside the mock build -
# Directory to install LaTeX styles
LATEX= $(DESTDIR).
which is incorrect.
-=-
This is how configure does it:
if texpath=`kpsewhich latex.ltx 2>/dev/null` then kpseflag="" elif texpath=`kpsewhich tex latex.ltx 2>/dev/null` then kpseflag="-DKPSEWHICH_NEED_TYPE" else texpath="."; kpseflag="" fi
texpath=`echo $texpath | sed -e 's%/[^/][^/]*/[^/]*$%/misc%'`
if test "$texpath" = "." then echo "$ac_t"""broken"" 1>&6 elif test "$kpseflag" != "" then echo "$ac_t""kpsewhich needs type" 1>&6 else echo "$ac_t""ok" 1>&6 fi
latex.ltx is tetex-latex - which is probably why the mock build failed.
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 08:36 EST ------- * Thu Apr 27 2006 José Matos jamatos@fc.up.pt - 1.1-3 - Capitalize Summary, fix spell error in description, rework invocation of post and postun calls (thanks to Patrice Dumas) - Add tetex-latex to Requires and BuildRequires. - Add tetex-fonts to Requires to satisfy direct dependency on texhash
Spec URL: http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/fedora-extras/dvipost.spec SRPM URL: http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/fedora-extras/dvipost-1.1-3.src.rpm
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 mpeters@mac.com 2006-04-27 09:16 EST ------- 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): 1) 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.
2) The html documentation might want to placed into texmf/doc somewhere so that texdoc dvipost will launch a browser window to the documentation.
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 ?
-=- Misc suggestion for upstream - filter out the cgi-bin references in the man2html conversion of the man page.
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.
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 mpeters@mac.com 2006-04-27 11:06 EST ------- (In reply to comment #11)
Something like:
%{!?_texmf: %define _texmf %(eval "echo `kpsewhich -expand-var '$TEXMFMAIN'`")}
Well, except that defining _texmf would in this case cause an error as well unless configure was patched to take it as an arguement (which I don't think is necessary) - I guess in this case expecting to support building against modified tetex environments might be a bit much because of the upstream configure script which looks for a specific file and doesn't take a texmf as a switch.
That makes sense but then it would imply to Require: tetex-doc. That would mean that a 40 KB package could potencially require an 100 MB package. I don't think this is worth it. :-)
/usr/bin/texdoc is owned by tetex. The potential problem is who owns the directories within the tex documentation tree if tetex-doc isn't installed - but other packages just own it themselves.
Since it is just the man page, and available as a man page, it isn't that big of a deal.
Actually I think that dvipost requires a tex installation, there is nothing exclusive from tetex. That was the reason why I have proposed dvipost and not tetex-dvipost.
If you feel strongly about this I will rename it.
On fedora - tetex is what provides tex. There are other examples of this (in core)
[mpeters@atlantis Desktop]$ rpm -qf /usr/bin/dvips tetex-dvips-3.0-17 [mpeters@atlantis Desktop]$ rpm -qf /usr/bin/xdvi tetex-xdvi-3.0-17
It also makes it a little easier to find when browsing repoview for tetex boltons.
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 11:41 EST ------- What about:
%changelog * Thu Apr 27 2006 José Matos jamatos@fc.up.pt - 1.1-4 - Rename package to tetex-dvipost
Spec URL: http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/fedora-extras/tetex-dvipost.spec SRPM URL: http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/fedora-extras/tetex-dvipost-1.1-4.src.rp...
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
mpeters@mac.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From mpeters@mac.com 2006-04-27 12:05 EST ------- Approved
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 pertusus@free.fr 2006-04-28 05:24 EST ------- Some comments:
* %post -p /usr/bin/texhash
will automatically add Requires(post) /usr/bin/texhash
So I think the explicit dependency on tetex-fonts is not really right as it may change in the future.
* A dependence on kpsewhich should be there, however, in my opinion: BuildRequires: /usr/bin/kpsewhich
* In my opinion the following should be used to detect %_texmf, since in configure kpsewhich is also used (even though a bit differently but I believe the result is the same) %{!?_texmf: %define _texmf %(eval "echo `kpsewhich -expand-var '$TEXMFMAIN'`")}
* the tetex package is picked up by tetex-latex, so I think that the dependencies on tetex should be removed.
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 mpeters@mac.com 2006-04-28 05:52 EST ------- kpsewhich is provided by tetex-fonts. It would need to be there if explicit tetex-fonts dependency is removed.
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 pertusus@free.fr 2006-04-28 06:18 EST ------- Yes, that's what I said above. I think
BuildRequires: /usr/bin/kpsewhich
is better than
BuildRequires: tetex-fonts
Not a big deal.
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
jamatos@fc.up.pt changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
------- Additional Comments From jamatos@fc.up.pt 2006-05-06 02:41 EST ------- (In reply to comment #15)
Some comments:
- %post -p /usr/bin/texhash
will automatically add Requires(post) /usr/bin/texhash
Right.
So I think the explicit dependency on tetex-fonts is not really right as it may change in the future.
OK.
- A dependence on kpsewhich should be there, however, in my opinion:
BuildRequires: /usr/bin/kpsewhich
Done.
- In my opinion the following should be used to detect %_texmf, since
in configure kpsewhich is also used (even though a bit differently but I believe the result is the same) %{!?_texmf: %define _texmf %(eval "echo
`kpsewhich -expand-var '$TEXMFMAIN'`")}
I agree, we should probably harmonize this in rules for tetex derived packages. Reading other tetex-* packages both ways are used.
- the tetex package is picked up by tetex-latex, so I think that
the dependencies on tetex should be removed.
I knew that. :-) I removed it.
The changes have been commited to CVS but I don't think the changes require a new build.
The package build cleanly for all branches so I will close this bug. The package build cleanly, so
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 mpeters@mac.com 2006-05-06 02:58 EST ------- (In reply to comment #18)
- In my opinion the following should be used to detect %_texmf, since
in configure kpsewhich is also used (even though a bit differently but I believe the result is the same) %{!?_texmf: %define _texmf %(eval "echo
`kpsewhich -expand-var '$TEXMFMAIN'`")}
I agree, we should probably harmonize this in rules for tetex derived packages. Reading other tetex-* packages both ways are used.
In this case - using %{!?_texmf: %define blah} should probably not be used since configure doesn't take an arguement for what texmf to use.
So if I did
rpmbuild --define '_texmf /mnt/nfs/my_texmf' --rebuild foo.src.rpm
the package might fail because kpsewhich in configure would pick up TEXMFMAIN instead of what the macro defines.
Once upstream adds a configure switch to optionally specify the texmf, then allowing a custom texmf in the spec file via setting a macro makes sense.
Upstream should probably be bugged about that. If I was building it from source, I would want it in TEXMFLOCAL (or in my home dir texmf) - so it should be a configure switch (and probably should default to TEXMFLOCAL if no arguement is given to configure)
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: tetex-dvipost - latex post filter command
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190071
jamatos@fc.up.pt changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: dvipost - |Review Request: tetex- |latex post filter command |dvipost - latex post filter | |command
------- Additional Comments From jamatos@fc.up.pt 2006-05-19 08:42 EST ------- (In reply to comment #19)
Upstream should probably be bugged about that. If I was building it from
source,
I would want it in TEXMFLOCAL (or in my home dir texmf) - so it should be a configure switch (and probably should default to TEXMFLOCAL if no arguement
is
given to configure)
I agree with your analysis, Michael. This goes to my todo list with low priority though. :-)
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla