[Bug 696052] Review Request: texlive-tetex-cmsuper - The CM-Super font set

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696052

--- Comment #2 from Mohamed El Morabity <pikachu.2014 at gmail.com> 2011-04-13 19:04:35 EDT ---
Here are some comments:

* A tacite rule for naming (La)TeX packages not part of the Fedora TeX Live
packages (or RHEL teTeX) is that the package name should start by « tex- »;
your package should be named tex-cmsuper, with no reference to the (La)TeX
distribution.

* The Type 1 fonts are licensed under the GPL with font exception. This should
be mentionned in the License tag.

* In the Requires:
   Requires(post): texlive >= 2007
   Requires(preun): texlive >= 2007
   Requires(postun): texlive >= 2007
Is the condition « texlive >= 2007 » really necessary? Fedora and RHEL 6 never
included versions of TeX Live prior to 2007.
By the way:
   Requires: texlive-dvips
   Requires: dvipdfm
Are these packages really required to use these fonts in (La)TeX?

* In the %install section, you create two scripts, tetex-addfonts-cmsuper and
tetex-removefonts-cmsuper. Why? It doesn't make sense to provides them to the
users of the package.

* Please consider
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Installing_TeX_files_.28unvetted.29
for the %post/%postun actions relative to (La)TeX packages. For the updmap
tweaks in these sections, you can refer to the tex-fonts-hebrew or the
tex-cm-lgc packages (since there is no specific guidelines for updmap in
%post/%postun).

* Because of the fonts themselves, the package is quite huge. Why not splitting
it into subpackages:
- one for the TeX files;
- some for the Type1 fonts?
You can refer again to tex-cm-lgc for example for it, which uses this approach.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.