FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Packaging

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-15-2008, 03:03 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default tex/latex doc install location

Hello,

In tex/latex bundled in fedora (I guess it comes from tetex and it is
now in texlive) there is a simple system to view documentation. The
files are found below /usr/share/texmf/doc using kpathsea (so hopefully
rapidly) and opened using the appropriate application (currently using
xdg-open for everything...).

In fedora should we use this system and put the doc files below
/usr/share/texmf/doc/ or use %doc?

--
Pat

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 01-15-2008, 03:25 PM
José Matos
 
Default tex/latex doc install location

On Tuesday 15 January 2008 16:03:28 Patrice Dumas wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In tex/latex bundled in fedora (I guess it comes from tetex and it is
> now in texlive) there is a simple system to view documentation. The
> files are found below /usr/share/texmf/doc using kpathsea (so hopefully
> rapidly) and opened using the appropriate application (currently using
> xdg-open for everything...).
>
> In fedora should we use this system and put the doc files below
> /usr/share/texmf/doc/ or use %doc?

Notice that this is in line with other languages, the documentation for R
packages (as an example) in under the R tree. I would like to favour the
texmf tree as the natural packaging place of latex documentation.

The package that started this discussion is the review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428686

I would like to use this package to be an example to draft the fedora
(la)tex package guidelines. Sooner or later we need them and now is good
time. :-)

Notice that the package follows the consensus on this list in August, naming
the package as tex-simplecv.

All feedback is welcome. :-)

> --
> Pat

--
José Abílio

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 01-21-2008, 12:54 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default tex/latex doc install location

On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 04:25:49PM +0000, José Matos wrote:
> >
> > In fedora should we use this system and put the doc files below
> > /usr/share/texmf/doc/ or use %doc?
>
> Notice that this is in line with other languages, the documentation for R
> packages (as an example) in under the R tree. I would like to favour the
> texmf tree as the natural packaging place of latex documentation.

Anybody else has an advice?

--
Pat

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 01-21-2008, 02:03 PM
"Jonathan Underwood"
 
Default tex/latex doc install location

On 21/01/2008, Patrice Dumas <pertusus@free.fr> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 04:25:49PM +0000, José Matos wrote:
> > >
> > > In fedora should we use this system and put the doc files below
> > > /usr/share/texmf/doc/ or use %doc?
> >
> > Notice that this is in line with other languages, the documentation for R
> > packages (as an example) in under the R tree. I would like to favour the
> > texmf tree as the natural packaging place of latex documentation.
>
> Anybody else has an advice?
>

My feeling is we want to make it as easy as possible for users to find
the docs they need. Adding lots of different locations really is
counter to that desire, and we should strive to keep docs in one
location.

However If we're going down the /usr/share/texmf/doc route, I guess we
could just have a symlink from /usr/share/doc/tex to
/usr/share/texmf/doc as a best of both worlds fix.

j.

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 01-21-2008, 03:12 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default tex/latex doc install location

Jonathan Underwood wrote:

On 21/01/2008, Patrice Dumas <pertusus@free.fr> wrote:

On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 04:25:49PM +0000, José Matos wrote:

In fedora should we use this system and put the doc files below
/usr/share/texmf/doc/ or use %doc?

Notice that this is in line with other languages, the documentation for R
packages (as an example) in under the R tree. I would like to favour the
texmf tree as the natural packaging place of latex documentation.

Anybody else has an advice?



My feeling is we want to make it as easy as possible for users to find
the docs they need. Adding lots of different locations really is
counter to that desire, and we should strive to keep docs in one
location.

I also favor this reasoning but I know that we presently have other
examples of documentation following a different upstream convention (For
instance, ruby gems). In addition, this case may be more like man,
info, or ghelp than like ruby gems.


One thing I'd like to ask about from the original post::
In tex/latex bundled in fedora (I guess it comes from tetex and it is
now in texlive) there is a simple system to view documentation.

What is this "simple system"? We do have a rule that nothing marked as
%doc should break an application if it is not present on the system. If
this help system is integrated into applications (like ghelp for gnome)
then this would count under that rule. If it's more like man and info
pages then we'd want them to be marked as doc even if they are located
somewhere other than %{_docdir}.


-Toshio

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 01-21-2008, 05:07 PM
Jason L Tibbitts III
 
Default tex/latex doc install location

Just a note that R essentially has an internal documentation browsing
system, and as far as I know it has not been our policy to dictate
where applications keep their internal help files, even if those files
are in standard formats. So perhaps R is not the best example to use
here.

- J<

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 01-21-2008, 06:15 PM
"Mary Ellen Foster"
 
Default tex/latex doc install location

On 21/01/2008, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@gmail.com> wrote:
> One thing I'd like to ask about from the original post::
> In tex/latex bundled in fedora (I guess it comes from tetex and it is
> now in texlive) there is a simple system to view documentation.
>
> What is this "simple system"? We do have a rule that nothing marked as
> %doc should break an application if it is not present on the system. If
> this help system is integrated into applications (like ghelp for gnome)
> then this would count under that rule. If it's more like man and info
> pages then we'd want them to be marked as doc even if they are located
> somewhere other than %{_docdir}.

In theory, to get documentation on any tex package, you type "texdoc
<package>". The system then looks in texmf/tex/doc/ for
<package>.{pdf,html,ps,dvi,...} and loads it in the appropriate
viewer.

This doesn't always work, for example with packages whose
documentation isn't named after the package, but that's the theory.
More information at http://linux.die.net/man/1/texdoc or
http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/help/Catalogue/entries/texdoc.html

MEF

--
Dr. Mary Ellen Foster -- http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/mef/
Informatik 6: Robotics and Embedded Systems, Technische Universität München
and ICCS, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 01-21-2008, 06:32 PM
Jindrich Novy
 
Default tex/latex doc install location

On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 07:15:30PM +0000, Mary Ellen Foster wrote:
> On 21/01/2008, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@gmail.com> wrote:
> > One thing I'd like to ask about from the original post::
> > In tex/latex bundled in fedora (I guess it comes from tetex and it is
> > now in texlive) there is a simple system to view documentation.
> >
> > What is this "simple system"? We do have a rule that nothing marked as
> > %doc should break an application if it is not present on the system. If
> > this help system is integrated into applications (like ghelp for gnome)
> > then this would count under that rule. If it's more like man and info
> > pages then we'd want them to be marked as doc even if they are located
> > somewhere other than %{_docdir}.
>
> In theory, to get documentation on any tex package, you type "texdoc
> <package>". The system then looks in texmf/tex/doc/ for
> <package>.{pdf,html,ps,dvi,...} and loads it in the appropriate
> viewer.
>
> This doesn't always work, for example with packages whose
> documentation isn't named after the package, but that's the theory.
> More information at http://linux.die.net/man/1/texdoc or
> http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/help/Catalogue/entries/texdoc.html
>

There are two tools for browsing documentation actually, texdoc and
texdoctk. The both are now packaged in texlive-doc subpackage. The
texdoctk provides a nice GUI where one can navigate to a particular
part of docs.

If we want to move docs anywhere else than to $TEXMFMAIN/doc, we need
to rework texdoctk a bit as it expects in its configuration file
(texdocrc.defaults) a path to documentation relative to the main texmf
tree. It's not worth the effort IMO, as $TEXMFMAIN/doc has always been
a directory where to put documentation so more things could break if we
change that.

Jindrich

--
Jindrich Novy <jnovy@redhat.com> http://people.redhat.com/jnovy/

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 01-21-2008, 06:38 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default tex/latex doc install location

On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 08:12:32AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> location.
>>
> I also favor this reasoning but I know that we presently have other
> examples of documentation following a different upstream convention (For
> instance, ruby gems). In addition, this case may be more like man, info,
> or ghelp than like ruby gems.
>
> One thing I'd like to ask about from the original post::
> In tex/latex bundled in fedora (I guess it comes from tetex and it is
> now in texlive) there is a simple system to view documentation.
>
> What is this "simple system"? We do have a rule that nothing marked as
> %doc should break an application if it is not present on the system. If
> this help system is integrated into applications (like ghelp for gnome)
> then this would count under that rule. If it's more like man and info
> pages then we'd want them to be marked as doc even if they are located
> somewhere other than %{_docdir}.

It is more like info pages (and see the other response for more in-depth
explanations...), and should be marked as %doc. And they are rightly marked
as %doc in packages that installs them here (texlive, for example).

--
Pat

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 01-21-2008, 07:15 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default tex/latex doc install location

Patrice Dumas wrote:

On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 08:12:32AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:

location.

I also favor this reasoning but I know that we presently have other
examples of documentation following a different upstream convention (For
instance, ruby gems). In addition, this case may be more like man, info,
or ghelp than like ruby gems.


One thing I'd like to ask about from the original post::
In tex/latex bundled in fedora (I guess it comes from tetex and it is
now in texlive) there is a simple system to view documentation.

What is this "simple system"? We do have a rule that nothing marked as
%doc should break an application if it is not present on the system. If
this help system is integrated into applications (like ghelp for gnome)
then this would count under that rule. If it's more like man and info
pages then we'd want them to be marked as doc even if they are located
somewhere other than %{_docdir}.


It is more like info pages (and see the other response for more in-depth
explanations...), and should be marked as %doc. And they are rightly marked
as %doc in packages that installs them here (texlive, for example).


Sounds good. FWIW, I think %{_datadir}/texmf/doc is fine.

-Toshio

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:59 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org