[Bug 242416] Review Request: texlive - Binaries for the TeX formatting system

Wed Aug 29 22:26:42 UTC 2007

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 18:26 EST -------
I think that the descriptions could be ameliorated. 
They are too detailed in my opinion, and at the same time
they don't cover what is really in the package. Moreover
some packages that are to be installed as dependencies 
don't need to have such a verbose description. I propose
the following, mainly taken from the existing descriptions
of course, these are just suggestions:

%description
TeX Live is an easy way to get up and running with TeX. 
It provides a comprehensive TeX system. The texlive package
contains many binaries and scripts, including tex.
Usually, TeX is used in conjunction with a higher level formatting
package like LaTeX or PlainTeX, since TeX by itself is not very
user-friendly.

Install texlive if you want to use the TeX text formatting system. Consider
to install texlive-latex (a higher level formatting package which provides
an easier-to-use interface for TeX). 

The TeX documentation is located in the texlive-doc package.

%description afm
texlive-afm provides afm2tfm, a converter for PostScript font metric
files.

%description dvips
Dvips converts .dvi files to PostScript(TM) format.

%description fonts
This package contains programs required to generate font files
for the TeX system. The kpathsea related programs are also
in this package, they are needed in order to find out a file
in the TeX file tree.

%description latex
LaTeX is a front end for the TeX text formatting system. Easier to
use than TeX. LaTeX is essentially a set of TeX macros which provide
convenient, predefined document formats for users. It also allows to
compile LaTeX files directly to PDF format.

The TeX documentation is located in the texlive-doc package.

%description xdvi
Xdvi allows you to preview .dvi files on an X Window System.

It seems to me that not removing t1lib is wrong, since
reautoconf has already been done:
# t1lib: use t1lib.ac and withenable.ac if reautoconf

Why not use the external autoconf-2.13?

Most the Requires should certainly be %{version}-%{release}
That way, if there is a fix that needs to be in 2 dependent
subpackages and if the user updates only one of the 2,
the other will be dragged in. Obviously not true for the 
*-errata subpackages, but at least for all the subpackages from
the same source package.

There is an Obsoletes for tetex-tex4ht remaining.

There are BuildRequires within subpackages. This is not 
wrong, but in my opinion it is easier to follow if all
the BuildRequires are in the beginning.

You should remove
  --add-category Application                           \

disdvi should certainly be in dviutils (if at all in texlive)
and I guess it is the same for dvipng.

maybe xelatex would better be in texlive-latex?

files/directories installed in usr/share/texmf/texconfig 
are not usefull (except for tcfmgr*), they are only
useful when using the dialog from texlive.

usr/share/texmf/web2c/*.pool are also in texlive-texmf.

and mf.pool is in 2 packages.

mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_texmf_var}
is redundant

Maybe xetex and context related binaries (and similar in texmf)
could be in separate packages, but it is not completely obvious 
either. What could be interesting, however, would be to group
the utilities that are context related and those that are 
xetex related.

Maybe you could use my patch from Comment #28?

The timestamps are not kept during install. In general doing
make INSTALL='install -p' is sufficient but in that case it
may need some testing.

Also in the explicit install call of noarch files, you could 
add -p, like in 
install -p -m 644 COPYRIGHT ChangeLog %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/texmf/doc/mendexk

after the iconv you can use
touch -r COPYRIGHT.jis %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/texmf/doc/mendexk/COPYRIGHT.jis

I don't think keeping the timestamps that are not easily kept
would be a blocker for the review.

Maybe 
%dir %{_texmf_var}
could be added too?

I haven't checked texlive-texmf*, but I think that there should
be something like
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/texmf
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/texmf/web2c
and maybe, if you feel like going through
%verify(not md5 size mtime) %config(missingok,noreplace)
for the config files that also are in /usr/share/texmf

It also seems to me that mktex.opt should be in 
%{_sysconfdir}/texmf/web2c %config(noreplace).
Same for mktexdir.opt

vfontmap.sample should certainly be in a doc directory.

You could add a proper shebang to texmfstart, or add a
Requires: ruby

The split between texlive-fonts and texlive is not very
obvious to me. For example kpsewhere is in texlive while
most of the kpe* programs are in -fonts. Also programs
like pfb2pfa tftopl mptopdf and omega related font programs
are in texlive while other font related commands are in 
-fonts.

More generally what is the criter to decide that something
goes in the font package or the main package? Where should
encoding related stuff go?

I can implement and test some of my proposals above with a 
spec file diff if you give me the permission for some of
the proposals.

-- 
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.