TeXLive
Hi folks! I want to create texlive.spec, and it's under developing. I use the tetex.spec as the beginning, but I've a question: should I split more subpackages the texlive package? What I think: the style-files, documentclass-files, e.g. exam.cls put into texlive-latex-exam, etc. When you think it, I make it. Imho it would be better (nearer to "pld-philosphy": http://www.pld-linux.org/Features -> Micropackages). Zsolt ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeXLive
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:35 PM, Zsolt Udvari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi folks! > > I want to create texlive.spec, and it's under developing. I use the > tetex.spec as the beginning, but I've a question: should I split more > subpackages the texlive package? What I think: the style-files, > documentclass-files, e.g. exam.cls put into texlive-latex-exam, etc. > When you think it, I make it. Imho it would be better (nearer to > "pld-philosphy": http://www.pld-linux.org/Features -> Micropackages). Since tetex is unmaintained we will certainly need TeXLive at one point or another. I suggest you make the package split however you feel is appropriate, add necessary obsoletes and just commit it. Others will have their chance to improve upon your work if they feel that's necessary before migrating PLD to the new TeX. Currently the tetex-* package tree in PLD is huge and there is no point in splitting "just because we can". I'm sure nobody will shoot you for doing your part even if others don't agree with the subpackages you propose :) -- Patryk Zawadzki ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeXLive
> Since tetex is unmaintained we will certainly need TeXLive at one > point or another. I suggest you make the package split however you > feel is appropriate, add necessary obsoletes and just commit it. > Others will have their chance to improve upon your work if they feel > that's necessary before migrating PLD to the new TeX. Currently the > tetex-* package tree in PLD is huge and there is no point in splitting > "just because we can". And one more reason: I'm (relative) beginner in LaTeX (I've used about 5 years plainTeX), and sometimes not found the package what I need (last time was the exam class). But when it's splitted many subpackage, I can see it in poldek with 'ls texlive-latex-*', and 'desc texlive-latex-foo', so maybe I (and others) can found the needed package (=package with a specified feature) easier. Zsolt ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeXLive
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 19:05:35 +0100, Zsolt Udvari wrote: > (last time was the exam class). But when it's splitted many > subpackage, I can see it in poldek with 'ls texlive-latex-*', and > 'desc texlive-latex-foo', so maybe I (and others) can found the needed > package (=package with a specified feature) easier. In case of LaTeX resources it's easy to find them by file name: rsearch -f /ifthen/ rsearch -f /multirow/ rsearch -f /tabularx/ -- Tomasz Pala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: SPECS: samsung-unified-linux-driver.spec (NEW) - initial release, CUPS part...
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Elan Ruusamäe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> +ExclusiveArch: i386 i486 i586 i686 athlon %{x8664}
>
> what do pentium3, pentium4 miss that they are excluded?
>
> $ rpm -E %ix86
> i386 i486 i586 i686 pentium3 pentium4 athlon
They don't miss anything. I just didn't know about them (and the macro:)
Corrected.
--
Michał Sałaban | http://michal.salaban.info
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: SPECS: privoxy.spec - up to 3.0.10 - not defined %_docdir issue
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 02:35:29 +0200, Tomasz Pala wrote: > libraries I have had installed ship %doc. Non-library packages would > almost certainly conflict on other files. Libraries conflict too... file /usr/bin/dumpiso from install of libraw1394-2.0.0-1.athlon conflicts with file from package libraw1394-1.3.0-1.athlon file /usr/bin/sendiso from install of libraw1394-2.0.0-1.athlon conflicts with file from package libraw1394-1.3.0-1.athlon file /usr/bin/testlibraw from install of libraw1394-2.0.0-1.athlon conflicts with file from package libraw1394-1.3.0-1.athlon file /usr/bin/x264 from install of libx264-0.1.2-1.20081023_2245.1.athlon conflicts with file from package libx264-0.1.2-1.20071008_2245.1.athlon file /usr/lib/vhook/drawtext.so from install of ffmpeg-libs-0.4.9-4.20081024.3.athlon conflicts with file from package ffmpeg-libs-0.4.9-4.20071009.0.3.athlon file /usr/lib/vhook/fish.so from install of ffmpeg-libs-0.4.9-4.20081024.3.athlon conflicts with file from package ffmpeg-libs-0.4.9-4.20071009.0.3.athlon file /usr/lib/vhook/null.so from install of ffmpeg-libs-0.4.9-4.20081024.3.athlon conflicts with file from package ffmpeg-libs-0.4.9-4.20071009.0.3.athlon file /usr/lib/vhook/ppm.so from install of ffmpeg-libs-0.4.9-4.20081024.3.athlon conflicts with file from package ffmpeg-libs-0.4.9-4.20071009.0.3.athlon file /usr/lib/vhook/watermark.so from install of ffmpeg-libs-0.4.9-4.20081024.3.athlon conflicts with file from package ffmpeg-libs-0.4.9-4.20071009.0.3.athlon -- Tomasz Pala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
