[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 pertusus at free.fr  2007-08-29 04:43 EST -------
(In reply to comment #46)
> (In reply to comment #45)
> > The licenses issues are blockers,
> 
> Yes, they are, but in the current state of TeXLive packages, which are now in
> functional state, we should focus on F8 inclusion, because feature freeze was
> yesterday and we can remove stuff with inappropriate licensing during the last
> testing period. If TeXLive is not included now into Fedora, there will be *no*
> TeXLive in it, making F8 terribly poor in comparison with other distros, such as
> Mandriva or SuSE, where texlive is already included. These license problems can
> really be resolved after inclusion.

A package with license issues cannot be approved. Since here we
have certainly the same issues in an already included package in 
Fedora (tetex), it would be acceptable, in my opinion, if you feel
that we really are in a hurry.

> > and I also think that
> > the projects I list in Comment #20 under 
> > 
> > Separate projects
> > -----------------
> > 
> > should not be shipped if they weren't part of tetex previously.
> 
> Why? One of the criteria needed for TeXLive to be accepted is that it should
> substitute functionality of tetex, what it does, but why to limit the Fedora
> TeXLive only to a functionality in obsolete teTeX? This makes no sense to me.

The point is not to reduce the functionalities in texlive, but do
proper packaging. It is not appropriate to repackage a distribution
when it consists of projects that have a clear independence. In general
every project with a release distributed and a home page should have
its own package. This is evident in the case of texlive because some 
parts are already out of date.

So, to avoid obsoletes and complications, it seems to me that it would 
be better not to add those to texlive in the first place (and submit
those packages separately). There are switches for all the utilities 
in the texlive configure to avoid building them.

As I said above I think that it acceptable to let those that were in
tetex slip in, but no more. If there was no tetex in fedora I think 
that shipping independent projects in texlive would be a blocker.

> I can add a virtual provides for those packages, but I don't think it's a good
> idea to remove the texlive- prefix as users should know it is not comming from,
> say xdvi upstream, but from TeXLive distribution so that it could differ from
> the official upstream of the projects as the problems users could face should be
> reportrd to TeXLive upstream.

My idea was that having those packages from texlive should be 
only transitory, and to avoid obsoletes/provides and so on 
and so forth (there are already the tetex related obsoletes)
it would be better not to use the texlive prefix in the first 
place. Especially when the version in texlive is the same than
the up-upstream version.

-- 
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.