On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 20:07 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > > > > > "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. I don't see a practical difference in the licensing between any arrangement of the same files, so long as we're ultimately packaging the same files. Whether one file in a single package of 16,000 files has a license issue, or the same file in a 5-file package that's part of a 3200 package collection has a license issue, we still have the same license issue. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
