Re: Request for review: tetex-prosper (tetex/latex package template)

["Jose Pedro Oliveira" <jpo di uminho pt>]

> I'm going to file a RFE on fedora-rpmdevtools to get a skeleton
> tetex-package spec file including the macros you used in tetex-bytefield
> - it's definitely the better way to do it.

It would be great to create one.  Last February I didn't push it as I
didn't get much feedback to my post to the fedora-packaging mailing list
(see references at the end of this message).

> I do have a question though -
>
> you use /usr/bin/texhash and I'm using /usr/bin/mktexlsr
> Is there a reason for using texhash? (I know its a symlink to mktexlsr)
>
> Also - in your spec file for bytefield, you allow the rpm builder to
> specify a custom texmf directory, and if not specified, the macro gets
> set to system default.
>
> Should texhash/mktexslr then specify the macro as the directory it
> operates on, in case the user chooses to build with a different one than
> default?

texhash is the recommend method to index the tetex/latex files. mktexlsr
appears to be deprecated. Source:

   * Managing a one-person TeX system
     http://www.ctan.org/installationadvice/

   Search for "texhash" and "mktexlsr".

Regards,
jpo

References:
* Managing a one-person TeX system
  http://www.ctan.org/installationadvice/

* The TeX Directory Structure (TDS) document
  http://www.tug.org/tds/tds.pdf

* RFC: howto to package LaTeX classes
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2005-February/msg00130.html

* Latex License
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2005-February/msg00132.html

-- 
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 *