[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  2007-08-30 04:50 EST -------
I thought a bit more about the independent packages issue and I think 
that 

* packages not in tetex should not be packaged in texlive.
detex devnag dvi2tty afm2pl dvipdfmx

* packages that are in tetex should be put in their own subpackages
  (with obsolete for the tetex package they were split off):
dvipdfm dvipng mendex

* And the subpackages that correspond with independent packages should
  not have texlive- prependended
dvipdfm dvipng mendex xdvik/pdvik


Then you can add requires in texlive or texlive-latex for the new
subpackages if you think that these subpackages are really needed.



That way the packages may be independently submitted to fedora very
easily without any renaming/obsolete.



Once again I can do patches to the texlive spec file to implement
the split.

-- 
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.