Hide Forgot
The tetex-xdvi rpm shipped with RH6.2 will let you install it (without errors) without having tetex installed. However, in order to run, xdvi needs some of the programs supplied by the tetex package. The tetex-xdvi rpm should be setup to require that the tetex rpm be installed first.
Still broken in fisher. Please add tetex as an requirement for tetex-xdvi. It will at least need the font generation binaries to work (MakeTeXPK, maybe others) which are part of tetex. Best solution would be to move these tools to tetex-fonts, so somebody who is only interested in a viewer does not have to install tetex.
I have had several abortive attempts at doing this, getting into a terrible mess each time. :-(
Why not just add a "Requires: tetex" on tetex-xdvi? How can that result in a mess?
The reason that the xdvi package was split out in the first place was to avoid bringing in *all* of tetex just to use xdvi. If the subpackage requires the main package anyway, there's no point in *having* it as a sub-package and all of the files may as well be owned by tetex in that case.
But if tetex-xdvi requires tetex the Requires should be there. If that defeats the purpose of the split the split can just as well be undone. Not much use for a separate package that isn't functional without a dependency that one doesn't want to make explicit. What is the problem with putting the necessary programs in tetex-fonts an Requires-ing that?
As I said in comment #2, it's hard. It's the best thing to do, but it's tricky to get it to work -- please feel free to have a go yourself. In the mean time I'll put in a Requires: tetex so that it actually works.
What is it that makes this hard to accomplish? You haven't explained that yet...
Note that I don't know anything of the internals of tetex (it's just that I keep bumping into it when I am doing extensive builds from source), but adding the following files to my setup makes xdvi work. What's wrong with changing the spec file like this?: --- tetex.spec.000 2003-08-08 15:33:48.000000000 +0200 +++ tetex.spec 2004-06-24 22:30:16.000000000 +0200 @@ -622,6 +622,17 @@ grep -v "/usr/share/texmf/fonts/tfm/jp" | \ grep -v "/usr/share/texmf/fonts/vf/ptex" | \ grep -v "/usr/share/texmf/fonts/source" > filelist.fonts +echo "%{_bindir}/gsftopk" >> filelist.fonts +echo "%{_bindir}/ksewhich" >> filelist.fonts +echo "%{_bindir}/mktexpk" >> filelist.fonts +echo "%{_datadir}/texmf/web2c/mktex.cnf" >> filelist.fonts +echo "%{_datadir}/texmf/web2c/mktex.opt" >> filelist.fonts +echo "%{_datadir}/texmf/web2c/mktexnam" >> filelist.fonts +echo "%{_datadir}/texmf/web2c/mktexnam.opt" >> filelist.fonts +echo "%{_datadir}/texmf/web2c/mktexupd" >> filelist.fonts +echo "%{_mandir}/man1/gsftopk.1.gz" >> filelist.fonts +echo "%{_mandir}/man1/ksewhich.1.gz" >> filelist.fonts +echo "%{_mandir}/man1/mktexpk.1.gz" >> filelist.fonts grep -v "/doc/" filelist.full | grep afm > filelist.afm Any files missing?
That of course should have been +echo "%{_bindir}/kpsewhich" >> filelist.fonts +echo "%{_mandir}/man1/kpsewhich.1.gz" >> filelist.fonts Not sure if to also move /usr/lib/kpathsea.a (and what about /usr/include? tetex-devel?) /usr/bin/kpse* + man pages /usr/bin/mktex* + man pages Maybe these files should be put in a separate tetex-fontutils package which is required both by tetex and tetex-xdvi/-fonts instead?
Leonard: the answer to "what's wrong with..." is: I don't know. I just remember that when I tried to move files around in 2001 it ended up breaking things. I understand that you're working on a tetex-common package; let me know what you end up with, because it would be great to fix this. Thanks.
Created attachment 101472 [details] SPEC file which cleans up inter-dependencies Move some files to tetex-fonts, which is now the central package. See the fedora-devel list ("Tetex inter-dependencies: proposed changes") for details.
Created attachment 101483 [details] SPEC file which cleans up inter-dependencies Small fixes to previous SPEC file. Relevant man pages to tetex-dvips.
Great, thanks! I've built this into 2.0.2-16, which should appear in rawhide tomorrow. The spec file is here in the meantime: ftp://people.redhat.com/twaugh/tmp/tetex/tetex.spec It would be useful if you could check through the changes, as I had to pick through a diff from 2.0.2-8 (which I think is what you started from). In future diffs will be more useful than complete files.
Diffs will be fine next time. Thought with the version it would be obvious enough from which file I started :) . Please check afm's dependency. I am not entirely sure about that. About the other changes I am quite confident.
Created attachment 101563 [details] Spec file fixes against tetex-2.0.2-16 Fix a few omissions. Drop tetex-afm Requires as it can function independently.
Thanks! Built as tetex-2.0.2-17.