Hi,
Are there any recommendations regarding TeTeX packages?
In particular I have a few doubts/questions regarding:
* license
Question: Is the "LaTeX Project Public License" an approved license?
Note: The rpmlint emits the following warning regarding the license ... W: tetex-xcolor invalid-license LaTeX Project Public License
* name conventions for tetex related macros
- texmf base directory - package base directory - package documentation base directory (texdoc related) - texhash program (or mktexlsr)
Example: %define _texmf %{_datadir}/texmf %define __texhash %{_bindir}/texhash
%define texpkg xcolor %define texpkgdir %{_texmf}/tex/latex/%{texpkg} %define texpkgdoc %{_texmf}/doc/latex/%{texpkg}
* installation scripts (texhash vs mktexlsr)
Problem: the texhash file is owned by different packages
$ rpm -qf /usr/bin/texhash
FC1: tetex-2.0.2-8 FC3: tetex-fonts-2.0.2-21.3
Solution: Use the file as a requirement
---------- ... Requires(post): %{__texhash} Requires(postun): %{__texhash} ... %post %{__texhash} %{_texmf} >/dev/null 2>&1 || :
%postun %{__texhash} %{_texmf} >/dev/null 2>&1 || : ... ----------
* installation of package documentation in order for it to be found by the texdoc program
Problem: - the texdoc program only searches for documentation files under the directory
/usr/share/texmf/doc/
- I believe the tetex package documentation should be installed in directories like
/usr/share/texmf/doc/latex/"package_name"
but /usr/share/texmf/doc is owned by tetex-doc which is a rather big package (50MB+) to be a requirement. Is it ok for tetex-* packages owning this directory?
I am packaging the latex Beamer presentation class and its two dependencies (xcolor and pgf). I have looked at several tetex-* packages (fedora us/extras) and almost everyone of them seems to be doing different thing. It would be nice to have a specfile template.
Comments/suggestions are welcome, jpo
References: * The Beamer presentation class http://latex-beamer.sourceforge.net/
* The Xcolor dependency http://www.ukern.de/tex/xcolor.html
* Two of my tetex specfiles http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/RPMS/tetex-xcolor.spec http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/RPMS/tetex-xcolor-2.00-1.src.rpm http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/RPMS/tetex-pgf.spec http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/RPMS/tetex-pgf-0.65-1.src.rpm
PS - I forgot to mention that I am not a TeX/LaTeX expert.
-- José Pedro Oliveira * mailto: jpo@di.uminho.pt * http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/~jpo * * gpg fingerprint = F9B6 8D87 859D 1C94 48F0 84C0 9749 9EB5 91BD 851B *
On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 19:50 +0000, José Pedro Oliveira wrote:
Question: Is the "LaTeX Project Public License" an approved license? Note: The rpmlint emits the following warning regarding the license
... W: tetex-xcolor invalid-license LaTeX Project Public License
Feel free to send/bugzilla patches/improvement ideas for the rpmlint config. (No, I don't know a thing about *TeX, nor the license, sorry.)
On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 19:50 +0000, José Pedro Oliveira wrote:
Hi,
Are there any recommendations regarding TeTeX packages?
In particular I have a few doubts/questions regarding:
license
Question: Is the "LaTeX Project Public License" an approved license?
It's not an OSI approved license, but it is listed as a "GPL-Incompatible, Free Software License".
I've updated the PackagingGuidelines with regards to licensing. Basically, if its a OSI-approved license, "GPL-Compatible, Free Software License", or "GPL-Incompatible, Free Software License", its ok for Fedora Extras.
Thus, the LPPL is ok.
~spot --- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Sales Engineer || GPG Fingerprint: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!
Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 19:50 +0000, José Pedro Oliveira wrote:
Hi,
Are there any recommendations regarding TeTeX packages?
In particular I have a few doubts/questions regarding:
license
Question: Is the "LaTeX Project Public License" an approved license?
It's not an OSI approved license, but it is listed as a "GPL-Incompatible, Free Software License".
I've updated the PackagingGuidelines with regards to licensing. Basically, if its a OSI-approved license, "GPL-Compatible, Free Software License", or "GPL-Incompatible, Free Software License", its ok for Fedora Extras.
Thus, the LPPL is ok.
Thanks for the information.
jpo -- José Pedro Oliveira * mailto: jpo@di.uminho.pt * http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/~jpo * * gpg fingerprint = F9B6 8D87 859D 1C94 48F0 84C0 9749 9EB5 91BD 851B *
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org