2009/1/29 Patrice Dumas <pertusus@xxxxxxx>: > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:06:27PM +0000, Jonathan Underwood wrote: >> >> I have actually been spending a chunk of time looking carefully at the >> way in which TeXlive is put together from the various upstreams to see >> if we can't do better than taking the monolthic tarball dumps of >> texlive as we have in the past. To say that the way the bits and >> pieces of TeX are put together is a horrific mess is an >> understatement. However, there is some hope. Forefront in my mind is >> that we do want to capitalise on the integration work that is done by >> texlive, as we don't have the manpower to reproduce that effort. On >> the other hand we want something much better integrated and modular >> than texlive presently provides for distribution packaging. At the >> moment though, I only have time to work on this at weekends, so >> progress so far has been slow, and has been entirely learning. > > Jindrich has done some work on extracting dependency information from > individual texlive packages. I don't know where this stands now. Yes, have looked at that... very useful. However, I am wondering if we should really be working from the texlive tree. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
