Texlive packaging

Matthew Miller mattdm at fedoraproject.org
Fri Mar 27 17:46:39 UTC 2015

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,

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?

Matthew Miller
<mattdm at fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader

More information about the devel mailing list