On 03/27/2015 05:49 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >>>>>> "KL" == Kalev Lember <kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > KL> If texlive packaging is causing issues with update pushes, could > KL> maybe ask the texlive maintainers to rework the packaging? > > The texlive packaging is basically the way they were required to do it > way back when. What do you mean with "were required to" ? > It used to be just a big ol' "texlive" package with only > a few subpackages that bundled up countless different upstream > packages. Now it's a big ol' texlive srpm that bundles countless > different upstreams, but then splits each of those upstreams into a > subpackage. A better way from a packaging standpoint, but not the > happiest outcome for our infrastructure folks. I strongly disagree that it's better from a packaging standpoint. I tried to open texlive spec file in Firefox earlier and it just froze up, trying to load the 16 MB file. This is a good example how to not do packaging. It just scares away anyone from touching the spec file. Debian seems to have found a nice middle ground, where they have 4 source packages, each producing a small number of binary packages (that's the number in parenthesis): https://packages.debian.org/source/jessie/texlive-base (20) https://packages.debian.org/source/jessie/texlive-bin (8) https://packages.debian.org/source/jessie/texlive-extra (24) https://packages.debian.org/source/jessie/texlive-lang (61) -- Kalev -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
