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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
