Texlive packaging

Matthew Miller mattdm at fedoraproject.org
Fri Mar 27 19:58:34 UTC 2015

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 08:28:21PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
> 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.

Right, as I understand it, the gigantic single SRPM is to avoid the
normal requirement that each individual package have its own manual
review. For thousands of packages, that's quite a burden.

But the workaround, while not violating any specific guidelines,
doesn't _really_ have any more careful individual review of each of its
parts — it's not a gain. And it has negative side-effects.

If FPC would be open to bulk-approving machine-generated individual
spec files (given, say, they're provably all following the template,
which would be reviewed), and rel-eng has some way of bulk-adding the
necessary branches and builds, that really seems like a step forward to

Am I missing something?


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

More information about the devel mailing list