Texlive packaging

Jason L Tibbitts III tibbs at math.uh.edu
Fri Mar 27 17:34:58 UTC 2015

>>>>> "KL" == Kalev Lember <kalevlember at gmail.com> writes:

KL> What do you mean with "were required to" ?

There were many discussions during and after the big texlive license
audit as to how to properly package the software.  I can no longer
remember exact dates because it's been a while; maybe someone else has a
better memory.

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.

 - J<

More information about the devel mailing list