Re: texlive 2009 - should set TEXMFCNF?

[Jindrich Novy <jnovy redhat com>]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 05:26:25PM +0000, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> 2009/10/29 Jindrich Novy <jnovy redhat com>:
> > Currently I'm trying to not to replace any package that has a separate
> > upstream and is already packaged separatelly in Fedora.
> >
> 
> IMO I think we'd be better off adopting the texlive versions of the
> packages, rather than doing a half-and-half job on this by packaging
> individual upstreams. The reason being that Fedora then benefits from
> the integration and testing work done by the texlive team. The texlive
> xdvipdfmx, for example is (I think), ahead of the 0.4 "upstream"
> release.
> 
> J.

Ok, no problem with obsoleting a Fedora package with a TeX Live
variant if you, as a package maintainer of it, wish to. I will add
Obsoletes for xdvipdfmx.

I'm presenting a complete list of packages shipped in TeX Live to
discuss another possible obsoletions:

dvipdfm
dvipdfmx
getafm
lcdftypetools
psutils
t1utils
xdvi
dvipng
xdvipdfmx

If you think that also some of these packages in Fedora should be
obsoleted, please let me know and I will do so in the next TL repo
update.

Thanks,
Jindrich

-- 
Jindrich Novy <jnovy redhat com>   http://people.redhat.com/jnovy/