[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 mpeters at 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)

-- 
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.