On 04/08/2015 12:46 PM, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
>
> I look at tl2pm and think "it would be fairly easy to patch that to
> spit out 4000 and something spec files rather than one 16 MB one". The
> unresolved issues are whether doing that would invalidate the previous
> license audit (it shouldn't really), and whether FESCO would grant a
> package review exception for those packages.
>
This may be worth pursuing. Or rewriting it in python :)
While we're at it I think we need to revisit the version numbers. Currently
we have things like:
%global tl_version 2014
%global tl_rel 11
%global tl_release %{tl_rel}.%{source_date}%{?dist}
%global tl_noarch_release %{tl_rel}%{?dist}
%package aastex
Provides: tex-aastex = %{tl_version}
Version: svn15878.5.2
Release: %{tl_noarch_release}.1
Provides: tex(aastex.cls) = %{tl_version}
Provides: tex(aastex.sty) = %{tl_version}
This doesn't appear to comply with
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
which I believe would imply:
Version: 5.2
Release: #.svn15878
The Provides version seems fairly arbitrary, but perhaps there is a reason for it.
I've just spent the better part of two days packaging up a couple missing EL7
texlive packages for internal use, would be nice to get this fixed at the
distro level.
Also, it is completely maddening that upstream does not appear to provide
anything but the most current tarball for packages, e.g.:
Source0100:
ftp://ftp.ctex.org/mirrors/CTAN/systems/texlive/tlnet/archive/aastex.tar.xz
unless anyone is aware of anything else? Perhaps we should be building from
source:
https://www.tug.org/svn/texlive/trunk/Master/texmf-dist/source/latex/aastex/
or ctan?
--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion@xxxxxxxx
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.nwra.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
