[Bug 242416] Review Request: texlive - Binaries for the TeX formatting system

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: texlive - Binaries for the TeX formatting system


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=242416





------- Additional Comments From tmraz at redhat.com  2007-08-30 05:34 EST -------
(In reply to comment #51)
> I thought a bit more about the independent packages issue and I think 
> that 
> 
> * packages not in tetex should not be packaged in texlive.
> detex devnag dvi2tty afm2pl dvipdfmx
I do not agree. For packages which are not currently part of Fedora it would
mean extra work to remove them from texlive and add them as separate packages.
Of course when someone steps up and submits these packages as separate they can
later be removed from texlive. I don't see any problem with that.

> * packages that are in tetex should be put in their own subpackages
>   (with obsolete for the tetex package they were split off):
> dvipdfm dvipng mendex
You cannot obsolete a package containing N features with a package containing
only a single feature from these N features.

> * And the subpackages that correspond with independent packages should
>   not have texlive- prependended
> dvipdfm dvipng mendex xdvik/pdvik
That's really a matter of personal preference I think.

> Then you can add requires in texlive or texlive-latex for the new
> subpackages if you think that these subpackages are really needed.
> 
> 


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.