TeTeX and TeXLive
Hi all! I'm working on TeXLive2009 and when anybody follows the changes, can see, that I'm splitting the texlive packages to a noarch and an arch-depend part (texlive-texmf.spec and texlive.spec). The packages names don't change (not will be e.g. texlive-texmf-latex-math or similar, only texlive-latex-math). In texlive.spec and texlive-texmf.spec there are many tetex-* provides (and obsoletes) because of compatibility with another, older packages (which (build)requires tetex-*). I want remove these provides in texlive.spec and texlive-texmf.spec, because these provides are a little difficult and imho unnecessary and redundant (yesterday I searched a provides-obsoletes-conlict about a half hour). The texlive packages are in repos about a half year (as I remember) and as I know, they work well. There are some difficulty with upgrade from tetex to texlive but as I know, can solve these problems with manual upgrade. And yes, texlive-packages need some more requires (mostly in latex-* packages, but I don't use e.g. chemical packages so I can't test them), so not perfect. So, what I want? From the developers: I want that the package maintainers check his/her packages and their (build)requires and if necessary, update the depends from tetex to texlive and increment the release (and test the package, of course ;)) From the users (and developers too ;)): if you use any TeX-system and you use tetex now, please upgrade to texlive. Thanks! Zsolt ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
cvsnt dos eol stupidity (was: readded with -kb to keep CR/L...)
On Sunday 21 June 2009 19:20:56 Elan Ruusamäe wrote: On Sunday 21 June 2009 19:11, hawk wrote: - readded with -kb to keep CR/LF as required blah? undos the patched file(s) instead. reasons why are already discussed several times in this list. http://www.cvsnt.org/manual/html/Substitution-modes.html here seems to be the doc to control the eol style. however i don't see a way to have mixed mode, so we should still go with approach of: 1. undos source 2. patch source with unix line endings. or what you think? and having binary file mode is no-no, as it will make diff feature in cvsweb unavailable. -- glen ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: cvsnt dos eol stupidity (was: readded with -kb to keep CR/L...)
2009/11/25 Elan Ruusamäe g...@pld-linux.org: http://www.cvsnt.org/manual/html/Substitution-modes.html here seems to be the doc to control the eol style. however i don't see a way to have mixed mode, so we should still go with approach of: 1. undos source 2. patch source with unix line endings. or what you think? Switch to git / mercurial already? *hides* -- 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: cvsnt dos eol stupidity (was: readded with -kb to keep CR/L...)
On Wednesday 25 November 2009 11:36:38 Patryk Zawadzki wrote: Switch to git / mercurial already? *hides* i'd see first git.pld-linux.org operating for the developer community first, but apparently nobody is working towards that. -- glen ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: cvsnt dos eol stupidity (was: readded with -kb to keep CR/L...)
2009/11/25 Elan Ruusamäe g...@pld-linux.org: On Wednesday 25 November 2009 11:36:38 Patryk Zawadzki wrote: Switch to git / mercurial already? *hides* i'd see first git.pld-linux.org operating for the developer community first, but apparently nobody is working towards that. It requires root access and I think I already gave you a step-by-step solution :) -- 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: cvsnt dos eol stupidity (was: readded with -kb to keep CR/L...)
On Wednesday 25 November 2009 14:16:18 Patryk Zawadzki wrote: 2009/11/25 Elan Ruusamäe g...@pld-linux.org: On Wednesday 25 November 2009 11:36:38 Patryk Zawadzki wrote: Switch to git / mercurial already? *hides* i'd see first git.pld-linux.org operating for the developer community first, but apparently nobody is working towards that. It requires root access and I think I already gave you a step-by-step solution :) you could post it to your blog too, it has the same effect. i have no mana to setup it even if i have 300 root-s... -- glen ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeTeX and TeXLive
On Wednesday 25 November 2009 10:51:15 Zsolt Udvari wrote: So, what I want? From the developers: I want that the package maintainers check his/her packages and their (build)requires and if necessary, update the depends from tetex to texlive and increment the release (and test the package, of course ;)) From the users (and developers too ;)): if you use any TeX-system and you use tetex now, please upgrade to texlive. isn't this this is too complicated for average developer (tm)? how would he/she know what is the new name? imho it's better make some migration package for the upgrade process and maintain it separately, like there exists X11.spec. it could be also source for BR's to fill, maybe even adopt adapter.awk for that. [1] http://cvs.pld-linux.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/packages/X11/X11.spec?only_with_tag=AC-branch -- glen ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeTeX and TeXLive
From the developers: I want that the package maintainers check his/her packages and their (build)requires and if necessary, update the depends from tetex to texlive and increment the release (and test the package, of course ;)) From the users (and developers too ;)): if you use any TeX-system and you use tetex now, please upgrade to texlive. isn't this this is too complicated for average developer (tm)? Hm? I don't understand you. If a developer (package maintainer) updates and cares about foo.spec, (s)he knows that this package needs or not any tetex-package. how would he/she know what is the new name? From tetex to texlive? In the most cases the name is equal (texlive-foo instead of tetex-foo). Any cases: search in poldek which package provides tetex-foo and can find that texlive-foo2 provides tetex-foo. Or this isn't solution? imho it's better make some migration package for the upgrade process and maintain it separately, like there exists X11.spec. So do you say that should be create texlive2008.spec? Zsolt ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeTeX and TeXLive
On Wednesday 25 November 2009 18:02:50 Zsolt Udvari wrote: isn't this this is too complicated for average developer (tm)? Hm? I don't understand you. If a developer (package maintainer) updates and cares about foo.spec, (s)he knows that this package needs or not any tetex-package. i update git-core.spec, i don't know a sh*t of tetex* crapolla. so i just disable the doc building then? i care for git-core as a program, not the madness behind documentation building. so i as git-core updater don't now anything which tetex is needed or is needed not whatsoever. -- glen ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeTeX and TeXLive
i update git-core.spec, i don't know a sh*t of tetex* crapolla. so i just disable the doc building then? i care for git-core as a program, not the madness behind documentation building. so i as git-core updater don't now anything which tetex is needed or is needed not whatsoever. Ask me :D I've checked the git-core.spec at this moment, and as I see, no tetex* BR. But if the most of developers say that the remove of tetex-provides is a very bad idea, I don't remove them ;) Zsolt ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeTeX and TeXLive
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Zsolt Udvari wrote: i update git-core.spec, i don't know a sh*t of tetex* crapolla. so i just disable the doc building then? i care for git-core as a program, not the madness behind documentation building. so i as git-core updater don't now anything which tetex is needed or is needed not whatsoever. Ask me :D I've checked the git-core.spec at this moment, and as I see, no tetex* BR. But if the most of developers say that the remove of tetex-provides is a very bad idea, I don't remove them ;) Why don't we just update all specs on HEAD and DEVEL using some automagic awk script? If Provides work it should works too. -- Regards, Paweł ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeTeX and TeXLive
Why don't we just update all specs on HEAD and DEVEL using some automagic awk script? If Provides work it should works too. I'm not an awk-guru :) Zsolt ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: packages: gnome-mplayer/gnome-mplayer.spec - BR: GConf2, GConf2-devel, curl...
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:43:38 +0100 sparky spa...@pld-linux.org wrote: Author: sparky Date: Wed Nov 25 16:43:38 2009 GMT Module: packages Tag: HEAD Log message: - BR: GConf2, GConf2-devel, curl-devel, gnome-power-manager, pulseaudio, which What is the idea behind adding tons of wrong BRs? -- Fryderyk Dziarmagowski ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: packages: gnome-mplayer/gnome-mplayer.spec - BR: GConf2, GConf2-devel, curl...
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 07:06:02PM +0100, Fryderyk Dziarmagowski wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:43:38 +0100
sparky spa...@pld-linux.org wrote:
Author: sparky Date: Wed Nov 25 16:43:38 2009 GMT
Module: packages Tag: HEAD
Log message:
- BR: GConf2, GConf2-devel, curl-devel, gnome-power-manager, pulseaudio,
which
What is the idea behind adding tons of wrong BRs?
Unforunatelly those aren't wrong, and fixing configure doesn't really
seem worth it.
FLATVOL=FALSE
if test -x `which pulseaudio`; then
PAVER=`pulseaudio --version | sed -e 's/pulseaudio 0.9.//'`
if test $PAVER -gt 14; then
FLATVOL=TRUE
fi
fi
AC_SUBST(FLATVOL)
if test -x `which gnome-power-manager`; then
GPMVER=`gnome-power-manager --version | sed -e 's/Version 2.//' | cut
-b1-2`
if test $GPMVER -ge 26; then
AC_DEFINE(SM_INHIBIT, 1, [Defined if you are using
gnome-power-manager 2.26 or higher])
fi
if test $GPMVER -lt 26; then
AC_DEFINE(SS_INHIBIT, 1, [Defined if you are using
gnome-power-manager below 2.26 ])
fi
fi
^- there are which, pulseaudio and gnome-power-manager
curl-devel is required for libmusicbrainz3
And GConf2 is required because build fails without it.
--
Sparky{PI] -- Przemyslaw _ ___ _ _ ... LANG...Pl..Ca..Es..En
/) ___ ___ _ _ || Iskra | | _ \| | | : WWWppcrcd.pld-linux.org
\\| -_)'___| ||^'||//\\//| _/| | | : JID..sparkyatjabberes.org
(/|| (_-_|_|| ||\\ || |_ |_| |_| _| : Mailsparkyatpld-linux.org
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
