Bug 441027 (ooolatex)

Also with the new texlive package in rawhide/F-9:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureTexLive

I'm not sure what the canonical requires for latex should be, so I used file
level requires, e.g.

Requires: /usr/bin/latex

it would be nice if there were Requires that would work the same on both rawhide
and on F-7 & F-8.

Cc'ing Caolan as the most experienced OOo extension packager for feedback.

FWIW, you could probably use 
echo yes | unopkg add --shared --link %{ooolatexext} || :
instead of patching out the "do you agree to GPL" foo to reduce the patch.

Maybe it'd be worth just unpacking it and applying the patch in %prep and doing
a standard copy of that tree in %install rather than unpacking %{SOURCE0} in
%install. Just to try and look as "normal" as possible.

reply to comment #3)
> FWIW, you could probably use 
> echo yes | unopkg add --shared --link %{ooolatexext} || :
> instead of patching out the "do you agree to GPL" foo to reduce the patch.
> 
> Maybe it'd be worth just unpacking it and applying the patch in %prep and doing
> a standard copy of that tree in %install rather than unpacking %{SOURCE0} in
> %install. Just to try and look as "normal" as possible.

Good idea, updated:

* Sun Apr  6 2008 Alex Lancaster - 4.0.0-0.beta2.2
- Requires -draw component to work and -writer or -impress to be useful.  
- Apply patch and install in more conventional way.  
- Supply "yes" to license script to avoid needing to patch description.xml

Spec URL: http://alexlan.fedorapeople.org/reviews/openoffice.org-ooolatex.spec
SRPM URL:
http://alexlan.fedorapeople.org/reviews/openoffice.org-ooolatex-4.0.0-0.beta2.2.fc8.src.rpm(In

(In reply to comment #4)

> SRPM URL:

should be:
 http://alexlan.fedorapeople.org/reviews/openoffice.org-ooolatex-4.0.0-0.beta2.2.fc8.src.rpm

Two items of concern:
1. pkg-licence/gpl_GB.txt should be in %doc. Please fix before committing.
2. Your release version isn't quite right. It should be:
Release: 0.2.beta2%{?dist}

Look closely at:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-d97a3f40b6dd9d2288206ac9bd8f1bf9b791b22a

Good:

- rpmlint checks return nothing
- package meets naming guidelines (except for Release)
- package meets packaging guidelines (OpenOffice.orgExtensions)
- license (GPLv2+) OK, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream (928230a58c4d5678e579c78ea6ab6f0bf226d08b)
- package compiles on devel (x86_64)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file 

Show me a spec with those items fixed, and I'll approve.

Spec url: http://alexlan.fedorapeople.org/reviews/openoffice-ooolatex.spec

* Wed Apr  9 2008 Alex Lancaster  - 4.0.0-0.3.beta2
- Fix Release
- Include license in %doc

Perhaps you would like to upload the new spec file? The one there is not fixed. ;)

(In reply to comment #8)
> Perhaps you would like to upload the new spec file? The one there is not fixed. ;)

Umm, did you refresh the browser?  I didn't regenerate the SRPM.

Ah sorry, I posted the wrong link, it should have been:

http://alexlan.fedorapeople.org/reviews/openoffice.org-ooolatex.spec

Looks good. APPROVED.

Don't forget to drop that comment about "unzipping", since you're not. ;)

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: openoffice.org-ooolatex
Short Description: Support for embedded LaTeX in Impress/Writer documents
Owners: alexlan
Branches: F-7 F-8
InitialCC: 
Cvsextras Commits: yes

cvs done.

Please close this out once you've got builds.

openoffice.org-ooolatex-4.0.0-0.5.beta2.fc8.1 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8

openoffice.org-ooolatex-4.0.0-0.5.beta2.fc8.1 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

This package builds on EL6 and I'd like to see it in EPEL.  Alex, are you interested or shall I maintain it?

(In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #17)
> This package builds on EL6 and I'd like to see it in EPEL.  Alex, are you
> interested or shall I maintain it?

Please do go ahead.  Feel free to make me co-maintainer.  Also are you interested in being the primary maintainer in Fedora as well?  I haven't had time to update it of late and the package may need some love.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: openoffice.org-ooolatex
New Branches: el6
Owners: orion alexlan
InitialCC: 

I'm not interesting in being a primary for Fedora, but I'll add myself.  It looks like upstream may be completely dead unfortunately, so I don't think there is much to update.

(In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #19)

> I'm not interesting in being a primary for Fedora, but I'll add myself.

Thanks.

> It looks like upstream may be completely dead unfortunately, so I don't think
> there is much to update.

Yes, I thought that might be the case.  I was thinking that at least we might need to keep it building against LibreOffice if the extension API changes or somesuch.

Git done (by process-git-requests).