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: dvipdfmx - A DVI to PDF translator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433225
------- Additional Comments From pertusus(a)free.fr 2008-02-17 18:18 EST -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> It seems to me that version should be 0 and release should be
> 0.x.20071115. However, dvipdfmx in texlive is already at release 16, so
> it seems to me that it can be
> 17.x.20071115. Or even x.20071115 with x beginning at 17.
>
Well, here I'd agree we should have something like x.20071115 as the version
number, but I don't like the 17 - what happens when upstream get to 1.0 for
example. This seems like a legitimate use of epoch to me. What do you think?
I am not saying the same. I am saying 0 for the version, and
x.20071115 for the release.
> Why the texlive-texmf BuildRequires?
>
For the macro definitions eg. _texmf_main etc.
I think it would be better to define them in case they are
not defined, and this deserves a comment.
> The files
> %{_texmf_main}/fonts/cmap/EUC-UCS2
> %{_texmf_main}/fonts/cmap/UniKSCms-UCS2-H
> %{_texmf_main}/fonts/cmap/UniKSCms-UCS2-V
> are already owned by texlive-texmf-fonts, which package should own them?
>
I think these should be in the dvipdfmx package, as they originate from that
tarball - will wait for Jindrich to comment on this also.
Indeed.
> In the texlive spec, there is, for the dvipdfmx subpackage:
> # for cmap files
> Requires: texlive-texmf-fonts = %{texlive_ver}
>
Yes, I can do that in this package also.
No, this is only needed if the files come from texlive-texmf-fonts.
Though maybe dvipdfmx needs texlive-texmf-fonts for other reasons.
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.