[Bug 190071] Review Request: dvipost - latex post filter command

[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: dvipost - latex post filter command


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190071





------- Additional Comments From jamatos at 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):
> 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.

  Something like:

 %{!?_texmf: %define _texmf %(eval "echo 
`kpsewhich -expand-var '$TEXMFMAIN'`")}

> 2) 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.

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