On 03/27/2015 05:49 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>> "KL" == Kalev Lember
<kalevlember(a)gmail.com> writes:
KL> If texlive packaging is causing issues with update pushes, could
KL> maybe ask the texlive maintainers to rework the packaging?
The texlive packaging is basically the way they were required to do it
way back when.
What do you mean with "were required to" ?
It used to be just a big ol' "texlive" package with
only
a few subpackages that bundled up countless different upstream
packages. Now it's a big ol' texlive srpm that bundles countless
different upstreams, but then splits each of those upstreams into a
subpackage. A better way from a packaging standpoint, but not the
happiest outcome for our infrastructure folks.
I strongly disagree that it's better from a packaging standpoint. I
tried to open texlive spec file in Firefox earlier and it just froze up,
trying to load the 16 MB file. This is a good example how to not do
packaging. It just scares away anyone from touching the spec file.
Debian seems to have found a nice middle ground, where they have 4
source packages, each producing a small number of binary packages
(that's the number in parenthesis):
https://packages.debian.org/source/jessie/texlive-base (20)
https://packages.debian.org/source/jessie/texlive-bin (8)
https://packages.debian.org/source/jessie/texlive-extra (24)
https://packages.debian.org/source/jessie/texlive-lang (61)
--
Kalev