[Fedora-packaging] Re: release of subpackage with version different from main rpm

Patrice Dumas pertusus at free.fr
Sun Jan 6 14:02:51 UTC 2008

On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 03:36:13PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 07:30:46PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> And given that tex distributions even very stable and solid ones like
> tetex can decide to disappear into thin air from one day to another, I
> wouldn't bind ourselves to versioning and naming of intermediate
> upstreams. E.g. I wouldn't even use texlive/tetex prefixes to
> subpackages and dependencies. After all a package requiring some
> version of LaTeX or dvips doesn't require that it comes from tetex,
> TeXlive etc., so the dependency should be kept subvendor-free.

There is a plan to have virtual provides for tex/latex, discussion
is at 

> (The current packages go into the right direction wrt above, e.g.:
>  texlive-2007-7
>  texlive-afm-2007-7
>  texlive-dvips-2007-7
>  texlive-dviutils-2007-7
>  texlive-latex-2007-7
>  kpathsea-2007-7
>  kpathsea-devel-2007-7
>  xdvi-22.84.12-7
>  dvipng-1.9-7
>  mendexk-2.6e-7
>  dvipdfm-0.13.2d-7
>  dvipdfmx-0-7
>  Ideally latex, dvips etc will also land into their "own" subpackage)

I don't think so. The package name should be what upstream is. It's up
to the virtual provides to provide vendor independance.


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list