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(a)free.fr 2007-08-30 09:34 EST -------
(In reply to comment #56)
> disdvi should certainly be in dviutils (if at all in texlive)
> and I guess it is the same for dvipng.
>
Same probably applies for:
%{_bindir}/dvicopy
%{_bindir}/dvihp
%{_bindir}/dvipdfm
%{_bindir}/dvipdft
%{_bindir}/dvipng
%{_bindir}/dvitomp
%{_bindir}/dvitype
%{_bindir}/odvicopy
%{_bindir}/odvitype
%{_bindir}/dvipos
makempx uses dvitomp, the other seems indeed to better be
in dviutils.
I moved them to -dvi and added new %post scriptlet for dvipng.info
installation.
> 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.
This would need a bit more effort, but seems reasonable.
I have just noticed that xetex and xelatex uses dvipdfmx.
So taking dvipdfmx from texlive makes sense. Still I think
that it would be better to have it in a subpackage, to
be able to easily replace it if needed. For the name
(with or without texlive-) it isn't an obvious choice:
* with texlive it marks that it is not the upstream dvipdfmx
* without texlive- it is easier to split and unsplit.
I checked that the other utilities I propose to split off
are not needed by other scripts or binaries.
To preserve timestamps? I wouldn't care for these.
Right. Would be better, in my opinion, but definitively
after the import.
--
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.