Texlive packaging

Florian Weimer fw at deneb.enyo.de
Sat Mar 28 19:40:12 UTC 2015

* Matthew Miller:

> 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.

TeXLive isn't just an installer for random versions of CTAN packages,
right?  They do make releases.  So the bundling is not unlike what
happens with, say, OpenJDK releases, where it is still not unheard of
to mix-and-match Hotspot from here and the class libraries from there,
and yet there is just one SRPM per release.

Debian has a middle-ground, with slightly more than 100 binary
packages, built from four source packages (as far as I can see).

More information about the devel mailing list