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-texmf - Architecture independent parts of the TeX
formatting system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=229180
------- Additional Comments From jnovy(a)redhat.com 2007-09-18 11:23 EST -------
(In reply to comment #50)
Unfortunately, I don't know who the upstream contact spot (Tom
Callaway) spoke
to was, I only know what spot posted to this bug and to the mailing lists.
I think the whole conversation can be found in this thread:
http://tug.org/mailman/htdig/tex-live/2007-August/014596.html
and the upstream person is Karl Berry.
As for the tarballs, the current specfile has this to say:
# Source0 comes as a result from scripts that look for files in teTeX and
assigns appropriate
# TeXLive styles to it so that no style present in teTeX will be missing in
TeXLive.
# it contains expanded packages from
ftp://tug.org/texlive/Contents/inst/archive/
# Scripts that are used for that are available at
http://people.redhat.com/jnovy/files/texlive/scripts/
Source0: texlive.texmf-%{version}.tar.bz2
# Source1 is
http://www.tug.org/texlive/Contents/inst/archive/texmf-var.zip
Source1: texlive.texmf-var-%{version}.zip
so the canonical sources for the current tarball are the packages in archive/.
Since the Fedora tarball is recomposed anyway, I guess this means Jindrich Novy
can/should also take care of the updating, right?
Yes, I will happily update the tarball as soon the legal things are clear.
--
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.