[Bug 433225] Review Request: dvipdfmx - A DVI to PDF translator

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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 at 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.