Request for review: latex-prosper

[Michael A. Peters]

On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 04:32 +0100, Jose Pedro Oliveira wrote:

> 
> I will try to review it better tomorrow.  Meanwhile see for example, the
> specfile of tetex-bytefield available in the Extras repo.

OK - other than the license thing being discussed, I *think* I've
covered everything.

http://mpeters.us/fc_extras/latex-prosper-1.00.4-0.2.src.rpm
http://mpeters.us/fc_extras/latex-prosper.spec

I'm going to file a RFE on fedora-rpmdevtools to get a skeleton
tetex-package spec file including the macros you used in tetex-bytefield
- it's definitely the better way to do it.

I do have a question though -

you use /usr/bin/texhash and I'm using /usr/bin/mktexlsr
Is there a reason for using texhash? (I know its a symlink to mktexlsr)

Also - in your spec file for bytefield, you allow the rpm builder to
specify a custom texmf directory, and if not specified, the macro gets
set to system default.

Should texhash/mktexslr then specify the macro as the directory it
operates on, in case the user chooses to build with a different one than
default?