>>>>> "MM" == Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: MM> Basically, this is an end-run around the requirement of doing MM> individual package reviews for a zillion completely separate MM> packages, right? That was my opinion, but you could argue the same for Perl, I suppose. We're essentially packaging a complete distribution. There aren't too many examples of that around. My proposal was to machine-generate the individual specs and have FESCo grant an exception to have them reviewed in a block. The hardest part, of course, would have been the licensing, except that texlive had undergone a rather complete license audit and every single file has been cleared. I don't know if that's still valid. MM> Since this approach really has disproportionately large negative MM> impact on the rest of the distro, it seems like we should find a MM> better way. Well, the "better way" (in my opinion) would involve: Making sure the licensing situation is still good. Getting CTAN hooked up to Antiya. Mechanically add every single texlive package that has an acceptable license. (I don't know if texlive actually carries any that don't.) Mechanically generate a huge load of srpms. Get FESCo approval for a variance to the usual package review procedure. Have three or four experienced reviewers go over a sampling of the packages and the generator. (which I imagine would only be used once.) Mass import them all into rawhide. This all needs to happen soon or wait until F23 branches. I think it's quite doable, but will need some scripting and coordination with infrastructure for some of it. And of course the question arises whether some other process will break. Now, there's a question as to how this all interacts with the texlive model of doing rollup releases, and whether that would cause any problems with texlive upstream. - J< -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
