Spec URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/tl2025/texlive-collection-latexextra.spec SRPM URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/tl2025/texlive-collection-latexextra-svn77261-1.fc44.src.rpm Description: A very large collection of add-on packages for LaTeX. Fedora Account System Username: spot Calling this "additional packages" is like calling Costco "a big store" or the ever expanding universe "large". Ahem. It'll be fine. Still so much better than just "texlive" used to be. This package is a split out version of what used to be all mashed together in the "texlive" package. It is split out by "collection", which is an upstream TeXLive concept. These packages are difficult to test in isolation, but they are all available in this copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/spot/texlive-2025 All of the components within this package are noarch, they do not need to be built, and they very rarely need to be patched. Accordingly, this package does not unpack all of the component files during %prep (this is the same behavior as current "texlive"), because it would require a large amount of files to be unnecessarily written to disk twice, slowing down the package build process by 2x. The package you're looking at might seem small, but some of these collections are pretty big. I would strongly prefer to have this package continue to work in that way, but if you feel strongly, you can plead your case here. :)
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10054689 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2432575-texlive-collection-latexextra/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10054689-texlive-collection-latexextra/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.
Ufff, this one is huge. texlive-collection-latexextra.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: tabu-update-to-git-930bc77.patch texlive-collection-latexextra.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: texlive-tabu-fix-longtable.patch texlive-collection-latexextra.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch2: texlive-no-l3regex.patch texlive-collection-latexextra.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch3: texlive-coloring-no-l3regex.patch texlive-collection-latexextra.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch4: texlive-mdframed-scrpage2-obsolete-fixes.patch texlive-collection-latexextra.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch5: texlive-rcsinfo-scrpage2-obsolete-fixes.patch texlive-collection-latexextra.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch6: texlive-svninfo-scrpage2-obsolete-fixes.patch texlive-collection-latexextra.spec: W: no-%check-section >License: Artistic-1.0 Uses not-allowed license.
The patch warnings are false positives (they're applied without using the macros). There is no need for a %check. I contacted the upstream for the Artistic 1.0 component and they agreed to permit distribution under Artistic 2.0. Documentation included. New SRPM: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/tl2025/texlive-collection-latexextra-svn77261-2.fc44.src.rpm New SPEC: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/tl2025/texlive-collection-latexextra.spec
> There is no need for a %check. That was my mistake; I accidentally copied one more line from rpmlint. > The patch warnings are false positives (they're applied without using the macros). Ah, I see. I somehow did not notice. > I contacted the upstream for the Artistic 1.0 component and they agreed to permit distribution under Artistic 2.0. Documentation included. And you included the communication as SourceX with the name uwmslide-Artistic-2.0-license-permission.pdf in the src.rpm. Nice. This is a prime example of how to proceed correctly. I thank both to you and Eric. The package is APPROVED
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/texlive-collection-latexextra