On 24/04/06, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That is a strange use of the word "yes". I'd call that "no", unless > you are talking about a CVS tarball instead of the last released one.
I looked at the spec file from the released tarball (not entirely unreasonable behaviour IMO). > The spec file from AUCTeX CVS is not supposed to need tweaking. OK - I will give the CVS spec file a whirl when I have a chance. However, the spec file from the release tarball fails to build on fedora, and taking a (brief) look now at the CVS spec file, I think it will bomb out in the same way - as I recall it tries to install files directly into the tree, not into the buildroot - this is why I installed preview into the tetex tree, as naively I assumed that was the right place to put it. > > Note that our RPM does _not_ provide preview-latex-common (which LyX > expects) since it does not install preview.sty into the teTeX tree. > For this purpose, there should be a separate, independent package in > the spec file, which isn't the case now. Ah, ok. I had read in the documentation on the auctex website that you discouraged breaking the tarball into separate packages for auctex and preview-latex. I do not have access to the documentation at the moment, but it seems clear I need to study the "Advice for package providers" carefully. Thanks again for the advice, I'll try and do a better job of the next spec version. Jonathan _______________________________________________ auctex-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel
