Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade at gmail.com
Sat Mar 28 17:56:03 UTC 2015
2015-03-28 13:26 GMT-03:00 Jonathan Underwood <jonathan.underwood at gmail.com>:
> On 28 March 2015 at 15:07, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
> <paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I maintained a slowly evolving approach in Mandriva for some years,
>> (but now it is quickly approaching one year I left Mandriva...), see the
>> main script at
>> It uses the texlive perl modules to do most of the work, and only does
>> some filtering on contents, choosing %doc (what texlive calls doc
>> and source), extracting dependencies or license information, %post
>> scripts, etc.
> This looks really handy. I wonder though about the need to really have
> one RPM per texlive package.Would it not be a reasonable middle ground
> to generate one SRPM per texlive collection?
Having 1 to 1, rpm packages matching texlive packages has its
advantages, it comes with dependencies easy to generate, and
one can update a 1-2k single package easily. But creating almost
3k packages to "bootstrap" could be quite disturbing.
One package per collection should be quite doable as well, and
could still make a perl script, to make it easy to convert texlive
packages metadata to rpm packages, using the texlive perl
An example of how it looks like when having one package per
texlive package is:
The above is a meta package, only with dependencies.
The above also is an example of what the script did when
there was no license information (it did trust whatever
texlive choose), and used a link to a license file, what
may not be a good idea.
An example of an actual package, not a "meta package":
and as well, another example of dubious license tag :(
This one is a more standard one, regarding licenses:
>> It is quite a lot of work, so, it would be better to have a SIG and
>> not let only one person handle all packages.
> I would be interested in joining such a SIG and effort.
me too :)
More information about the devel