Re: Texlive packaging
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:34:58PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III
wrote:
> Personally I preferred the "thousand package review" scenario, but that
> never happened. Having a small number of subpackages, however, was
> never really something we on the packaging committee, at least, would
> have allowed. But after that, we had no real input on how the actual
> package was structured. It certainly could have been done in a better
> manner than a 16MB, machine generated spec. Intervention there would
> have to have been made by the package reviewer, and that didn't happen.
Basically, this is an end-run around the requirement of doing
individual package reviews for a zillion completely separate packages,
right?
Since this approach really has disproportionately large negative impact
on the rest of the distro, it seems like we should find a better way.
(Maybe even a separate texlive repo and git branches, still hosted by
Fedora and built in koji, but allowing machine-generated CTAN packages?
Actually "machine generated" isn't per se bad ... it saves a lot of
effort and should be done more (for other packages too where
possible).
Why waste man power for something that can be automated?
As for tex ... we could have a srpm for each one (machine generated
there is no reason it has to be one srpm) would also mean that only
the packages where something changes end up getting updated.