On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 17:33:00 +0100 Tomasz Kłoczko <kloczko.tomasz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 14 October 2016 at 16:02, Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Making personal attacks or calling people names is not acceptable. > > > > Did I call someone name? .. hmm ?? Yes, as Adam noted you called people morons. Don't do that. ...snip... > Q: not who accepted this but WHY? Why someone not refused to move > more 5k packages after single build request? ...snip... > If it is true .. maybe can someone help me to understand intention > packaging texlive like it is now? I can try and provide history here. ;) Disclaimer: This is just what I remember, it could be wrong. Texlive is unique. It's very handy and used, especially in the publishing and educational areas, so it's important to provide it in Fedora. There's a number of similarities between texlive and perl's cpan or pythons pypy. It's a large collection of smaller packages that work with each other. However, it also has at least one big difference from those other collections: They do (about) yearly releases of the entire collection because it's very interrelated. Also, perl and python communities grew up around their packaging, so there's a large number of people packaging projects up as they are added. Texlive started as a free fork of tetex, so it appeared with tons and tons of packages and no community to package each little part up. Long ago when texlive was replacing tetex, the first thing that had to happen was a legal review of all texlive. This took years and lots of people. Once that was done it got an exception to come in as one source package and lots of subpackages for all the reasons above. The orig maintainer had a program that generated the spec file, but they have long since moved on. Tom has taken over updating it recently and has done a lot to improve the spec. Yes, there have been bugs or issues, but sometimes thats the nature of things. So far this year: Added lines: 49387 Removed lines: 270572 Total # of lines: -221185 So, Tom has removed 221k lines from there. I think thats a pretty good tally of improvement. So, focusing on positive actions here: * Perhaps we could split things up a little. I have often wondered if just splitting things in 5-10 packages could help, but I would absolutely defer to Tom here since he's been doing the work and he was my sponsor 10 years ago and knows more about packaging than I ever could. * If you have specific ideas for improvements, do file bugs and attach your patches or explain what you think would help. I'm sure he would love to hear it. Further than that I would wait for Tom to chime in... kevin
Attachment:
pgp2MBL3JF_zg.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
