[lucida] Re: lucida] Lucida installation with RPM

[Michael A. Peters]

On Sun, 2005-12-18 at 10:41 +1300, Volker Kuhlmann wrote:
> > > I don't like that. I don't like _anything_ owned by rpm in /usr/local
> 
> Correct.
> 
> > For the time being I'll stick with $TEXMFLOCAL, although there can not 
> > possibly be a conflict when one puts the Lucida outlines into $TEXMFMAIN. 
> 
> /usr/local is not under the control of rpm, it is used for software
> which is installed from other sources (for various reasons). Please keep
> it that way.
> 
> For rpm-controlled additions to the already existing tetex system,
> either write into tetxt's system tree (/usr/share/texmf), which is
> probably best, or start your own one (but *not* in /usr/local).
> 
> Don't make rpms which own directories already owned by other packages.

This is sometimes necessary.
For example - the directory /usr/share/texmf/doc/

The reason - an rpm should cleanly un-install, as in it doesn't leave
any hanging unowned directories when it is removed.

As such, a tex package that includes documentation for the texdoc system
needs to either own /usr/share/texmf/doc or require that tetex-doc
package be installed, which is a very large package that many users
don't feel a need to have installed. As such - /usr/share/texmf/doc ends
up being owned by many packages - that's fine, rpm won't remove the
directory if another package also owns it. But when the last package
that owns it is uninstalled, it will be empty and thus removed without
leaving any unowned directories.

> 
> As for making spec files suiting every Linux distribution, my personal
> experience is that it doesn't work. At the minimum one typically ends up
> with a gazillion conditionals.

Yes, in many cases that is true. The FHS guidelines are helping in that
department, though - by standardizing where stuff is installed. The
proper use of macros also helps that quite a bit.