Texlive packaging

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 20:07 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > > > > > "MM" == Matthew Miller <mattdm at fedoraproject.org> writes:
> 
> MM> Basically, this is an end-run around the requirement of doing
> MM> individual package reviews for a zillion completely separate
> MM> packages, right?
> 
> That was my opinion, but you could argue the same for Perl, I 
> suppose.
> We're essentially packaging a complete distribution.  There aren't 
> too
> many examples of that around.
> 
> My proposal was to machine-generate the individual specs and have 
> FESCo
> grant an exception to have them reviewed in a block.  The hardest 
> part,
> of course, would have been the licensing, except that texlive had
> undergone a rather complete license audit and every single file has 
> been
> cleared.  I don't know if that's still valid.

I don't see a practical difference in the licensing between any 
arrangement of the same files, so long as we're ultimately packaging 
the same files. Whether one file in a single package of 16,000 files 
has a license issue, or the same file in a 5-file package that's part 
of a 3200 package collection has a license issue, we still have the 
same license issue.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net