Bug 2397825 - Review Request: texlive-eq-save - Save exerquiz quizzes and resume
Summary: Review Request: texlive-eq-save - Save exerquiz quizzes and resume
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Miroslav Suchý
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: http://tug.org/texlive/
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2025-09-24 14:50 UTC by Tom "spot" Callaway
Modified: 2026-02-07 13:55 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2026-02-07 13:55:14 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
msuchy: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9597672 to 9636924 (2.12 KB, patch)
2025-10-01 15:55 UTC, Fedora Review Service
no flags Details | Diff

Description Tom "spot" Callaway 2025-09-24 14:50:28 UTC
Spec URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/tl2025/texlive-eq-save.spec
SRPM URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/tl2025/texlive-eq-save-svn299-1.fc44.src.rpm
Description: 
The package has a scheme for saving data from exerquiz
documents so the student can return later to continue with quiz
results restored.
Fedora Account System Username: spot

This package is part of an effort to modularize and more completely package TeXLive in Fedora, starting with TL2025. A copr with F43 and Rawhide builds for this package (and the rest of the package set) can be found here:

https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/spot/texlive-2025/

The use of a high epoch is intentional, this is the legacy of TeXLive, and it ensures consistency in dependencies and forcing upgrades.

The "eq-save" component is not part of "proper" TeXLive, it lives in the tlcontrib space, but components within "proper" TeXLive depend on it, so I've packaged it as a standalone package (along with "acrotex" and "mathtime-ltx").

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2025-09-24 14:54:40 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9597672
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2397825-texlive-eq-save/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09597672-texlive-eq-save/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 2 Miroslav Suchý 2025-09-24 21:35:28 UTC
You may want to fix:
texlive-eq-save.spec:18: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 8, tab: line 18)

You can document in comment how you get:
Source2:        texlive-licenses.tar.xz

The %doc is big - 95% of the package. Maybe create -doc subpackage. On the other hand the package has only 357 KB, so it is not a big deal.


A blocker for review:
tar -xf %{SOURCE0} -C %{buildroot}%{_texmf_main}
tar -xf %{SOURCE1} -C %{buildroot}%{_texmf_main}

Please move the extraction to %prep and in %install do just `cp -a`.

Comment 3 Tom "spot" Callaway 2025-10-01 15:30:27 UTC
I will move the extraction for these smaller packages, but there is a significant buildtime cost (and added spec complexity) to copying the tex components twice (once in %build, again in %install) when building the larger collection packages, and I do not think it is worth changing them there.

To your point on the docs... in the past, there were -doc subpackages for most of the texlive component packages and it scaled poorly. rpm has mechanisms to install without files marked as %doc and that is a far better solution for most texlive components (and it makes the packaging so much cleaner). Only in egregious cases where the docs are massive (texlive-context-doc) do I force a -doc subpackage.

New SPEC: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/tl2025/texlive-eq-save.spec
New SRPM: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/tl2025/texlive-eq-save-svn299-2.fc44.src.rpm

Comment 4 Fedora Review Service 2025-10-01 15:55:02 UTC
Created attachment 2108238 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9597672 to 9636924

Comment 5 Fedora Review Service 2025-10-01 15:55:04 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9636924
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2397825-texlive-eq-save/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09636924-texlive-eq-save/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 6 Miroslav Suchý 2025-10-01 18:34:00 UTC
If cp is costly, then I think you can `mv`. 

My point is that after %prep should be the sources extracted so various tools can analyze it after `rpmbuild -bp`.

With the -doc subpackages I think it is still worth doing. But I will not block the review on this. Especially when this is "just" split of existing package and just copy current state.

APPROVED.

Comment 7 Tom "spot" Callaway 2026-01-05 20:54:35 UTC
Please reset and re-enable the review flag here, so I can start making these packages in rawhide. Apologies for the extra work, I didn't realize there was a time-limit.

Comment 8 Miroslav Suchý 2026-01-07 17:38:24 UTC
updated

Comment 9 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2026-01-07 17:49:22 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/texlive-eq-save


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.