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: dvipost - latex post filter command

------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 11:06 EST -------
(In reply to comment #11)

>   Something like:
>  %{!?_texmf: %define _texmf %(eval "echo 
> `kpsewhich -expand-var '$TEXMFMAIN'`")}

Well, except that defining _texmf would in this case cause an error as well
unless configure was patched to take it as an arguement (which I don't think is
necessary) - I guess in this case expecting to support building against modified
tetex environments might be a bit much because of the upstream configure script
which looks for a specific file and doesn't take a texmf as a switch.

>   That makes sense but then it would imply to Require: tetex-doc. That would 
> mean that a 40 KB package could potencially require an 100 MB package. I 
> don't 
> think this is worth it. :-)

/usr/bin/texdoc is owned by tetex.
The potential problem is who owns the directories within the tex documentation
tree if tetex-doc isn't installed - but other packages just own it themselves.

Since it is just the man page, and available as a man page, it isn't that big of
a deal.

>   Actually I think that dvipost requires a tex installation, there is nothing 
> exclusive from tetex. That was the reason why I have proposed dvipost and not 
> tetex-dvipost.
>   If you feel strongly about this I will rename it.

On fedora - tetex is what provides tex.
There are other examples of this (in core)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] Desktop]$ rpm -qf /usr/bin/dvips
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Desktop]$ rpm -qf /usr/bin/xdvi

It also makes it a little easier to find when browsing repoview for tetex 

Configure bugmail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

Fedora-package-review mailing list

Reply via email to