On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:34:58PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > Personally I preferred the "thousand package review" scenario, but that > never happened. Having a small number of subpackages, however, was > never really something we on the packaging committee, at least, would > have allowed. But after that, we had no real input on how the actual > package was structured. It certainly could have been done in a better > manner than a 16MB, machine generated spec. Intervention there would > have to have been made by the package reviewer, and that didn't happen. Basically, this is an end-run around the requirement of doing individual package reviews for a zillion completely separate packages, right? Since this approach really has disproportionately large negative impact on the rest of the distro, it seems like we should find a better way. (Maybe even a separate texlive repo and git branches, still hosted by Fedora and built in koji, but allowing machine-generated CTAN packages? -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
